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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Drugs are the greatest US killer. Drugs are worse in the US than anywhere else.
According to the CDC, the leading cause of accidental death in the US in 2017 was drug overdose, which killed over 61,000 people. Car crashes killed less than 38,000 that year. If you include suicide, death by drug overdose accounted for over 70,000 deaths in 2017.
According to ourworldindata.org, the US has the largest share of it's population suffering an illicit drug use disorder (addiction) compared to all other countries. 3.45% of the US has an illicit drug addiction. The next highest country is UAE at 2.92%. The UK has only 1.66% of its population suffering illicit drug addiction.
According to the same source, the US substantially leads the world in amphetamine overdose deaths and in cocaine deaths. The largest group affected by addiction by far is between 15 to 29 year olds, our youth.
Drugs are a greater problem for the US than for any other country in the world.
https://ourworldindata.org/illicit-drug-use
If people do not have access to illicit drugs, then illicit drugs cannot kill people. Therefore, all illicit drugs should be banned in the US.
The difference between drugs and lethal weapons, such as firearms and knives is that weapons are made to kill, injure or intimidate other people and not the bearers
Drugs are meant to be taken by pleasure seeking hedonists or the weak-minded who cannot face the harshness of life's realities without a crutch.
Due to the addictive nature and dangers of illegal substances being pretty well unknown during the 1960s and perhaps the early 70s the junkies of that era could possibly be forgiven for becoming hooked on drugs.
Since then however, everyone, even the dogs in the street know the nightmares waiting for anyone who is sufficiently stupid to take up the habit.
So, what we're seeing here is a display of nature's;- 'natural selection'' process whereby the stupid and weak-minded destroy themselves thus leaving more room for the strong-willed achievers to flourish and advance the evolution of superior human beings.
Leave the useless junkies to flounder and die in their self-made hell-holes.
As nothing in nature goes to waste, the rats can dispose of their useless carcasses, just as NATURE INTENDED.
The difference between drugs and lethal weapons, such as firearms and knives is that weapons are made to kill, injure or intimidate other people and not the bearers
There are many big differences, but you are correct that is one of them. Another is that drugs need to be abused in order to cause harm to anybody (outside of allergic reactions etc...). Guns do not need to be abused to cause harm to others because that is their specific design purpose.
Another might be that overdoses almost always come about as a side-effect of addiction, and like it or not addiction is a medical problem. Hence, it's a bit like arguing that we shouldn't stop people building bombs because cancer.
The vast majority of drug deaths are young people. Young people are known for risky and irrational behavior, even when they grow into perfectly functional and reasonable 30 somethings. This means that even with prior knowledge of the detriment of drug use, a mostly reasonable young person could easily fall prey to the consequences of drug use. The chances of a person succumbing to drugs is magnified if they grew up around it, making the consequences seem to them less dire since they have no positive outlook to compare it to. Their chances of pulling through a period of drug abuse is even worse of they have a genetic predisposition to addiction.
With all that being said and regardless of your feelings toward addicts; how might the US reduce the number of drug deaths?
If someone, young, old or indifferent is clearly and graphically told that if they stick their genitalia into a food blender they're not going to have much of a sex life but proceed to do so, then all we can do is laugh and try to clear up the mess.
The one thing which ''lockdowns'' illustrated was the dependency so many people have on booze and illegal drugs.
It is dangerously wrong to give encouragement to these wasters by excusing their anti-social habits as acceptable youthful exuberance.
These poor naive youths steal, mug and kill people to fund their addiction.
No one has the answer to how to reduce drug taking in their back pocket but we can all see that the methods we're using to combat this out-of-control crisis is not working.
One, suggestion would be to significantly increase the message of the dangers of drugs in schools, youth associations, gyms, Universities any anywhere were people meet.
We can all play our part.
In the gym, young males ask me how to get bigger arms, or stronger legs.
I tell them that I will give them sound advice if they promise never to take steroids. Then I go on to give them a mini lecture on the pitfalls of taking any form of illegal drugs.
I guess some of them are sorry they ever asked me in the first place.
All of that positive reinforcement will fall flat compared to the drug culture fostered in homes where there is no sense of how a healthy lifestyle even looks.
Perhaps no one person has the answer, but there are whole countries doing it just fine with fewer laws on the matter.
I'm talking more about American drug culture than the psyche it produces. While drug culture often correlates with poverty, one cannot infer that any given poor family necessarily engages in the drug culture. Yours didn't, and you're better off for it.
I don't see anywhere in my posts where an explanation of the situation has provided excuses for dead beats. Understanding how a person comes around to sticking needles in their arm is necessary if you want the many addicts in this country to return to the meaningful productivity that many of them once knew. Understanding what drives America's drug culture is also necessary if you want to dismantle it. The alternative is to assume that your fellow citizens has a psyche that is inherently flawed.
Well, we come down again to standard creampuff's ( I'm not referring to you as a creampuff, clearly you're anything but ) approach of backing away from confronting the crisis with resolve and a degree of ruthlessness.
This ongoing social catastrophe is a war being fought, half heartedly, on a number of fronts two of which are the drug barons/suppliers/vendors and the users.
All historical facts would indicate that we can forget about trying to beat the suppliers.
If you beat them into the ground in zone B they pop up in area C shortly afterwards.
So, we then look at the users and recognize that existing junkies are not worth the effort or expense of trying to rehabilitate.
Leave them to rot in the quagmire of their own shit.
Now we turn our endeavours and resources to the children of our nation and launch a hard-hitting program of education based on indoctrination techniques.
The anti-drug message must be unrelenting and graphically depicted with the most gruesome illustrations.
Of course the progressive virtue signalling cream-puffs along with some vote conscious politicians will be very much against such measures.
It's clear that the same-old, same-old isn't going to work.
Yes, clearly the status quo is not working. I would hope a lot of people across the board would be able agree with a heavy anti-drug information effort. However, DARE was unproductive at best and counter-productive at worst. I think you could even get approval for graphic displays for your dissuasion effort in some areas.
I don't think you will find as much support for the "let'em rot" approach. Too many addicts have concerned family and friends. People who vote.
Many parts of the rest of the world lack the drug prohibitions currently in place in the US. Yet drugs are a bigger problem in the US than anywhere else. If you want to let addicts suffer in the street, do you not also want drugs legalized?
Without having researched the topic in depth my knee-jerk response is, yes, legalize drugs.
This would release the agencies of law and order to pursue other crimes and eliminate the gangsters who control the entire industry from manufacture to street vending.
Actually, this exchange has made me think, are there more sinister forces at work preventing the legalizing of narcotics?
The drug industry must be one of the most lucrative businesses in the world and its legalization would take $ billions away from the drug barons.
Anyway, the message we should be putting out is;- don't START taking drugs, and if you've started, STOP.
According to the CDC, the leading cause of accidental death in the US in 2017 was drug overdose, which killed over 61,000 people.
If people do not have access to illicit drugs, then illicit drugs cannot kill people. Therefore, all illicit drugs should be banned in the US.
Hello A:
If your interest was in saving lives, why only include ILLICIT drugs? Is legality more important than lethality?? Truth is, the LEGAL drug, nicotine, kills 1,000's of times more people than do "illicit" drugs.
This also from the DCD: Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.
If your interest was in saving lives, why only include ILLICIT drugs? Is legality more important than lethality??
What a joke. He has no interest in saving lives. He's trying to justify the completely preventable loss of 40,000 of them every year with the good old-fashioned "two wrongs make a right" defence.
No they don't you retard. Car accidents are not preventable because cars are completely necessary to the present way of life. Without cars nobody can travel to or from work. Functional society grinds to a complete halt without cars.
Whenever there is a car accident, someone ran a light, crossed a lane line, lost control, was drunk etc. That's preventable. Pretty much all car accidents are preventable. And yes, in 2017 car deaths exceeded 40,000.
Now again, try to stay on topic. This is about drugs.
I put all the smart things in bold and I left the ignorant shit in plain text:
Infinity is an abstract concept
On what basis are you drawing that conclusion?
Black holes are regions of infinite density and black holes demonstrably exist. Therefore your conclusion would appear to be wrong.
and is, by definition, greater than any conceivable number.
Yes, but that tells us nothing about why you believe it to be an abstract concept.
However big the universe is at any given future point, it will have an assignable number that represents that distance.
Yes, this had occurred to me. I agree. At least in theory.
However large that number is, we will always be able to conceive of a number that is larger.
That's because numbers themselves are infinite you bozo.
If you change the question and ask how large the universe can expand, the answer may be that it can expand infinitely
If it can expand infinitely (which the latest data suggests it can and will) then it is infinite, because remember we are also measuring across time as well as space.
For this one, I put all the stupid ignorant shit in bold, just to be consistent with the original:
Black holes are regions of infinite density and black holes demonstrably exist. Therefore your conclusion would appear to be wrong.
"A singularity is a point in space where there is a mass with infinite density."
"In the real universe, no black holes contain singularities. In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance."
If it can expand infinitely (which the latest data suggests it can and will) then it is infinite, because remember we are also measuring across time as well as space.
An infinitely expanding universe expands unendingly. That does not mean that its existent size is infinite. The infinity refers to an endless potential, not an actuality. Infinity is not a coherent concept as an actuality (see above).
You can only claim that the astrophysicist agrees with you by cutting off most of what he says. I'll provide the rest of the sentence you lying, willfully ignorant little fuck.
"A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing."
What?! Not really a thing?! Then what is it?!
"It just means that the mathematics that we're using to describe the thing have broken down.*
This astrophysicist must be full of shit. What does singularity even mean?!
"there's a singularity, which means that we can't do the math any more"
Wow... In guess that other physics professor wasn't lying and NOVA was right when they said most physicists see singularities as a mathematical problem with the theory.
How come I keep citing physicists and you keep citing wiki articles and philosophy? Oh right, because you're a willfully ignorant lying little fuck.
Additionally, he has specifically chosen only to provide stats on 2017, which looks like it may have been the worst year for drug overdoses since at least 1999 according to the data I am looking at. Fatal drug overdoses have more than tripled since 1999 according to the CDC:-
I chose 2017 because it was the most recent year the world stat site had available
Lmao. No you didn't you contemptible liar. The CDC is your go-to source and the CDC is where I got my information. Instead you linked an obscure back-end website and hoped nobody would check other years. I know you too well you lamentable little crook.
The CDC is my go-to, but they don't have international data. Our world in data is a perfectly legit source for world data. If I chose 2018, the most current year on the CDC site, the absolute deaths would be slightly less than in 2017, but my point would still stand as drugs are still the top cause of fatal injury in the US. The problem is that it wouldn't be the same year I was rwft timing world data.
I looked at tobacco and alcohol as well. But analyzing death from tobacco use requires considering the indirect affects of smoking which necessarily entails a variety of other indirect variables. For example, an ex-smoker who has not smoked for 20 years before they get lung cancer will be considered to have died from a disease caused by their smoking habit. While there is reason to believe that smoking is the primary determinant, other things contribute to cancer. If a person overdoses on heroin, it is obvious what killed them and there is no other contributing factor.
If you look at my world stat source you'll find that tobacco is not our biggest issue compared to other countries. Many countries have a tobacco health issue. Furthermore, half of tobacco deaths around the world are people over 70. More than 90 are people over 50. Drugs mostly kill our youth.
As for alcohol, I found that the US doesn't consume as much as my personal experience has led me to believe. While it causes serious problems, it's not our biggest problem illicit drugs are our greatest killer.
It’s seems everything should be banned in the US you used to say swimming pools killed more people than guns now it’s drugs
Using your new position then that’s just 60,000 more deaths on top of the 40,000 gun deaths plus injuries
You admitted like most Americans that you have a gun for protection because as you admitted you live in a violent society , what point exactly are you trying to make ?
Jesus Christ your sophistry is so stupid. Drugs are not manufactured and designed for use as lethal weapons. You are AGAIN trying to distort reality around your own bias by purposefully only referencing ACCIDENTAL deaths. There are not many accidental gun deaths because guns are designed to kill you on PURPOSE you fucking idiot.
If drugs are such effective methods of killing other people then why don't we arm soldiers with drugs instead of guns you stupid fuck?
Any given pool is statistically more lethal than any given firearm. But that is completely beside the point. The topic here is drugs.
If you cannot stay on topic I'll ban you. If you insist on being a hype man for others who cannot stay on topic, I'll ban you both. Again, the topic is the IS drug problem.
When you say you disagree, do you not believe the data I presented on drugs? Or do you simply disagree about an unrelated issue and so cannot form a coherent though concerning this one?
Of the other topic is related, then I'm sure you can muster the consistency to apply your arguments elsewhere to this topic.
And I will ban you, but I'm curious to see if you can even think about drugs for a moment, or if your anti-gun position bleeds into even this topic.
That's another lie. The sarcastic language you close with makes it perfectly obvious that you are making a direct comparison to the sane portion of the population that wants to ban guns on the grounds that guns kill a lot of people. We also had been arguing about guns for the last three days straight before you started this thread. You, I and Jody.
You're a fucking liar, Amarel. You are so crooked I doubt you can even lie straight in bed buddy.
If you cannot stay on topic I'll ban you.
Go for it you fucking clown. Since your assertion is a completely laughable falsehood it is pretty obvious that you are going to ban me anyway and are just looking for a false pretence to do so.
If it's the same portion of the population that wants to ban guns, can the same people comment on how to reduce drug deaths? Why doesn't a drug ban work?
This is a debate about America's drug problem. There is no mention of firearms for that reason. If I were to contrast our drug problem with gun deaths, I would have mentioned that in 2017 all death by firearm was under 40,000 according to the CDC.
That still leaves drugs as the greatest killer in the US with more than 70,000 dead. The fact that drugs kills on accident more people than a lethal weapon kills on purpose is beside the point, and doesn't serve your argument anyway.
Of you can't at least attempt to stay on topic (the drug problem), then I'll ban you.
Ahhh we are using 4 year old stats , got ya .....also I said using your new position then that’s just 60,000 more deaths on top of the 40,000 gun deaths plus injuries
Ban both save 100,00 deaths .....oh and maybe swimming pools as well as you claim they are more lethal than guns
61,000 accidental drug deaths. Including suicide, it's closer to 70,000 (my words).
If you decriminalize all the drugs to Portugal for example, where only .71% of the population has addiction issues (compare to US 3.45%) and there are few overdoses, I'd say they will be fine, given drugs are legal to use there. There are numerous countries with far looser drug laws than the US, but we have the biggest problem. Seems it may be a cultural issue.
The problem is legalizing drugs will attract more users not less with bigger costs in health and the manufacturers of such will offer variants of their products just like happened with cannibas products in the US where it was legalised thus making it more attractive to potential users
The world data site has interactive maps and graphs. It shows that death rates from drug use disorders remained constant and very low from 1990 to 2017 in Portugal. Portugal decriminalized drug possession in 2001. Uruguay has never criminalized drug possession and their rates have remained similar to Portugal.
There are a number of variables with the opioid epidemic. One of them is that medical opioids were actually believed to be non-habit forming because they were slow release and long lasting. Doctors would address any patients perceived pain with opioids without any qualms or concerns. When it was clear that even slow release pain killers were highly addictive, a ton of people were already addicted.
2017 is the year used to be consistent with the world stats I sources. Drug deaths from all intents was 70,237. That number came down slightly in 2018 to 67,367.
In 2018, the year you are citing, you got all unintentional deaths right, but that's about it. Of all unintentional deaths in 2018, drugs still lead the way at 35.2% of all unintentional deaths (58.908). Second traffic, and third is falls.
In 2018 Drug deaths lead the way by a large margin for all deaths at 28%. This includes all intents and mechanisms (murder, car crashes, suicides, etc)
But again, I used 2017 because the world data goes as far as 2017. The numbers you got wrong in 2018 are likely due to you not using the site properly, just like last time.
criminalizing drug manufacture and distribution removes legal quality control regulation, increasing the risk of bad drugs hitting the black market. criminalizing drug use also reduces the likelihood that people will seek help with addiction, exacerbating the issue. other countries also have legalized drugs without matching us rates, so the legality is not sufficient for explaining why the us has this problem. it would be more productive to target predictors for drug abuse - things like poverty, unstable home environments, etc.
all of that aside, fuck purity politics and state paternalism. its my life to abuse and gamble with if i want to.
I can mostly get on board. What do you think about drugs that make a person inherently dangerous to others, the way alcohol does when one is driving? Drugs such as PCP?
i doubt that there is any drug which necessarily makes a person dangerous to others. in which case, criminalizing drugs under that auspice amounts to penalizing people in anticipation of a crime which is not certain to transpire on the basis of how it has affected some other people at other times and under other circumstances. i am opposed to that, particularly as (again) this criminalization is unlikely to have an appreciable downward effect upon use and may even exacerbate abuse of the substances in question.
orly. every time anyone takes a drink they become dangerous to others. stfu burrito.
You didn't propose that you retarded bitch. You wrote:-
i doubt that there is any drug which necessarily makes a person dangerous to others.
If what you meant by that sentence is that you doubt there is any drug which makes EVERY person dangerous to others, then you need to figure out what words mean.
Some drugs consistently induce a mental state that would be sufficient to forcibly commit someone on the grounds that their brain illness makes them a danger to themselves or others.
Are you against laws barring drunk driving; or is that a sufficiently narrow circumstance?
broadly speaking, i am opposed to laws. presupposing that there must be laws, i find laws against drunk driving relatively tolerable though im not especially keen on them. notably, i think these kinds of laws are different from the kinds we've been discussing since they don't criminalize drug use but a particular kind of activity while under the influence of a particular drug (and the motivation is not paternalistic or puritan). i think the case is much stronger that this combination of particular drug use and particular activity necessarily endanger others than it is that any particular drug use alone necessarily endangers others, although it's imperfect since the bav becomes endangering in combination with driving at variable points for different people.
PCP mimics the effects of schizophrenia and often includes violent behavior. PCP deaths are less often overdose and more often the result of accident or suicide resulting from the altered stated produced by the substance.
pcp may induce effects which resemble a schizophrenic episode, but people experiencing schizophrenic episodes are rarely a danger to others (nice mentalism, though). pcp also rarely induces violent behavior and typically does so only in people who are already disposed towards violent behavior. (sauce)
with respect to the deaths of pcp users i'll reiterate that its their choice to do with their bodies and lives what they will. fuck paternalism. hard nope. i'll also reiterate that if ur really concerned with the well-being of pcp users then u'll support decriminalization so that drug production is regulated to make its use safer and so addicts have more support and less stigma in accessing that support.
People suffering a schizophrenic episode are committed for the hazard they pose. Though they are rarely a danger to others, their confused state poses a danger to themselves. The types of death caused by PCP use support the mental health analogy. PCP is an example of a drug that, once taken, removes agency from the agent.
Do you maintain your view of paternalism consistently in all.matters of government?
an entirely founded disengagement based upon readily available information which ive tired of presenting as tho it were reasonably controversial or difficult to come by.
nothing to do with trolls. everything to do with being exhausted with the banality of confident ignorance and mendacity.
i doubt that there is any drug which necessarily makes a person dangerous to others.
Drink certainly does , drinkers consistently drive with drink taken and I’m not talking about those that are blind drunk but others who just “had a few” and think they’re fine to drive
in which case, criminalizing drugs under that auspice amounts to penalizing people in anticipation of a crime which is not certain to transpire on the basis of how it has affected some other people at other times and under other circumstances. i am opposed to that, particularly as (again) this criminalization is unlikely to have an appreciable downward effect upon use and may even exacerbate abuse of the substances in question.
Not at all , heavy penalties regards drink driving have a huge impact on such behaviours getting banned from driving because of drink has a huge positive effect on such behaviors. Where I live
if you’re stopped and even have one drink taken you’re off the road for 3 years and your insurance goes up when you apply to drive again .....it works
numerous people consume alcohol without driving, so drinking does not necessarily make a person dangerous to others.
laws like the one ur discussing don't work because those people just drive without a license or insurance. substance abuse and addiction are not rational behaviors and they don't answer to practical consequences.
drunk driving laws also are not the kind of laws under discussion. the kind of laws under discussion involve the direct prohibition of substances deemed 'drugs'.
numerous people consume alcohol without driving, so drinking does not necessarily make a person dangerous to others.
Which is it does if they are driving
laws like the one ur discussing don't work because those people just drive without a license or insurance.
Absolute nonsense they work pretty well in most countries no one wants a ban off the roads for drink driving such measures have been pretty effective
substance abuse and addiction are not rational behaviors and they don't answer to practical consequences.
“Rational “ by what standard?
drunk driving laws also are not the kind of laws under discussion. the kind of laws under discussion involve the direct prohibition of substances deemed 'drugs'.
I know , I was taking issue with your assertion ....
i doubt that there is any drug which necessarily makes a person dangerous to others.
none of this is responsive to my original remark, which was that no drug necessarily makes a person dangerous to others. that consuming alcohol sometimes makes people dangerous to others is compatible with my claim and does not disprove it in the least.
there is no reason to think that either license revocation or insurance hikes would be effective in diminishing drunk driving (and your assertion that it does is just that). people who drunk drive are already ignoring the law by drinking and driving. it is inexplicable in your account that they would suddenly care about other laws (i.e. license and insurance requirements). these are not people who are motivated by practical consequences (i.e. the contextually given meaning of rational, despite ur insinuation that im invoking something vague here) because of the very nature of their condition - being at best cognitively impaired and at worse afflicted with an addiction.
im tired of reiterating the same arguments just to get a non-responsive go around. take the last insubstantial word if u want. im out.
none of this is responsive to my original remark, which was that no drug necessarily makes a person dangerous to others.
Again you’re babbling driving a car with drink makes you a danger to others
that consuming alcohol sometimes makes people dangerous to others is compatible with my claim and does not disprove it in the least.
Are you drinking at the moment you’re making little sense
there is no reason to think that either license revocation or insurance hikes would be effective in diminishing drunk driving (and your assertion that it does is just that).
What a ridiculous assertion when numbers have plummeted since the 70’s
people who drunk drive are already ignoring the law by drinking and driving. it is inexplicable in your account that they would suddenly care about other laws (i.e. license and insurance requirements).
Another utterly ridiculous assertion based on nothing but your usual rambling personal opinion
these are not people who are motivated by practical consequences (i.e. the contextually given meaning of rational, despite ur insinuation that im invoking something vague here) because of the very nature of their condition - being at best cognitively impaired and at worse afflicted with an addiction.
I actually think you’re stoned you’re making fuck all sense
tired of reiterating the same arguments just to get a non-responsive go around.
As usual when cornered you blame your opponent on your stupidity
take the last insubstantial word if u want. im out.
Yes run along you probably have some pressing “gender issue “ to tackle 🤣🤣🤣
for poverty, some options: end corporate welfare, end corporate personhood, break up parasitic oligopolies to permit self-sufficient local economies, implement ubi, implement a disparity cap.
economic vulnerability is one predictor of unstable home environments, so addressing poverty will have some positive effect in addressing that concern but not a sufficient one. where independent adults or youths are concerned, providing but not mandating support for the abused or neglected (as well as for the abusers or neglecting parties) to improve their condition at their own discretion is not paternalistic. some of that would follow naturally from something like ubi (e.g. access to mental health resources, housing, etc.), but additional options could include transitional housing, safehouse locations, and extraction services. where dependent adults or youths are concerned, id say that paternalism is permissible relative to the dependency of the person in question (i.e. their capacity for autonomous decision making and execution). for instance, i think paternalism towards infants is tolerable. by contrast, a teenager should have more autonomy in guiding the direction of the assistance they receive, including the option of petitioning for expedited age of majority.
criminalizing drug manufacture and distribution removes legal quality control regulation, increasing the risk of bad drugs hitting the black market.
If you are in favor of legalization for the purposes of regulation, would you be in favor of continued criminalization of unregulated drug production and distribution?
no, i would not. i think it may be permissible to criminalize misrepresenting a product as quality controlled to specified standards where such misrepresentation poses a danger to consumers. extra-regulatory production and distribution should still be permissible.
i will clarify as well that i am not personally in favor of legalization for the purpose of regulation. i think that regulation is a less invasive intrusion upon personal autonomy than criminalization is, and it is more successful in accomplishing the paternalistic concerns of others (and i remark upon it as the lesser evil that speaks to the concerns of others).
I disagree here. We have most cases because people are irresponsible, but that doesn't mean we have to take this away from everyone. I'm all for freedom. If someone overdoses - sorry, I guess you deserved it. Just check the limits online or somewhere else and you might avoid this issue.
Supporting Evidence:
Bank Opening
(www.bankopening.co.uk)
