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.
Is it the government's job to decide what you can and cannot put in your body?
Drugs are a big issue right now. The majority of our prisons are filled with people who are in there with drug charges. Do you think that the government should decide what you can and cannot put into your body?
Yes definitely because it is the governments job to help and decide the wellbeing of the people in their country and letting them have what ever they want in their bodies for example drugs and two fatty foods because if they didn't to many people in their country would be lying high and asleep not knowing where they are. Which is why the government help people by banning these things because people think their being horrible by doing this but their not their saving your lives.
You mean do you have the right to put into your body whatever you like? As it stands, no. The government, for the most part, owns you. They want to keep you from dying, and able to work, so you (the whole population) can keep making money and help the government stay in power. That's the reason you can't kill yourself. You can't eat foods they deem too unhealthy, and you can't do drugs (unless they okay them).
That said, rights aside, I think we should be able to. As the other side says, no victim no crime. So long as whatever you're doing really is only affecting you. Meaning killing yourself to get out of debt would not be justified, and doing drugs that make you dangerous would not be justified.
"Do you think that the government should decide what you can and cannot put into your body?" In the title I said "Is it the government's job...?", by that I mean "are they supposed to...?"
It is just that. Their job is to maintain some semblance of safety for you. They want to keep you fir for the slaughter so to speak, in being born here you owe your life to them, more or less.
I do not believe that it is fair that that is how it is, but as the question asks "Is it their Job (i.e. purpose) then the answer is yes. The sole purpose of the government is to keep people under their control, they can't do that if everyone's dying because Meth is legal.
Are you sure you aren't only opposed to certain types of government? Say there is a community of people who all live in a spaceship, and they write a consitution that everyone who wants to live on the spaceship must agree to, and anyone who does not agree is welcome to leave the spaceship and live elsewhere; would you be opposed to the spaceship government without even reading it's constitution?
Suppose you lived near a stream you used as your sole source of drinking water, and some folks upsteam were severely polluting the stream and it made your kids sick. Would you feel like you have a right to make them stop if they refused to stop polluting the stream when you asked?
The closest I could come to this scenario might be post apocalyptic wasteland, where it's every body fight for yourself. As a peaceful person I might ask nicely to stop polluting the lake first, but after that I'd take it into my own hands, no regulation needed. So to answer your question, yes.
So you find it acceptable to use force to protect your interests, (and fine we won't call it regulation) but you are opposed to people teaming up to do it. I am trying to understand your anarchist stance.
I do, and I don't mind teaming up for our own self interest. If what you were describing is regulation, then I don't mind being wrong, in saying "I don't want regulation". I want to depend on myself is I guess the simplest way I could express it.
The term transcendentalist has being used a few times for me, but I think that's a little much. I don't strive to live a rule free lifestyle, I would just be comfortable with it, more comfortable than the current one.
A few of my favorite philosophers have been labeled "transcedentalists" I think I feel the same way about that term as you.
I just don't like authoritarian forms of government myself, but I don't think government can be done away with, only changed. I feel the same way about religion.
Governments are based on lists called laws that represent what specific groups are unwilling to tolerate. The longer the the list, the more tyrannical the government becomes. With a different (I'd say deeper) understanding of what government is, one would realize almost nothing can be done without some form of government. As I see it, the thinking needs to change from "let's get rid of government" to "let's improve government"
You mean aside from the abundant health-care related costs or the many reports of drug related crime. While i am open to consider other currently illegal substance, (especially marrijuana which has been proven to have beneficial effects) crack is one drug that i stand firm must remain illegal as it is possibly the most dangerous of all drugs.
You should research alcohol. It's at least as harmful if not more harmful to public health than crack. In the interest of not being a hypocrite, you should support making alcohol illegal should you not?
That is a good point, but for a couple of reasons i do not think it would be the right response to ill-legalize alcohol. For starters, we have tried it before and it failed. Society has too much of a connection to it to give it up entirely. I think it would be a waste of government resources to try to pass a law that would be impossible to keep for the most part.
The major problem with alcohol is the danger intoxicated people present to others, on the road or otherwise. perhaps as a compromise a law is passed that states drinking alcohol is a privilege, like driving, that can be revoked under certain conditions, such as DUIs or domestic abuse.
What about making all drugs legal for the same reason alcohol is legal and dealing with drug abuse (which should be inclusive of any abusable drug) as a reason to provide treatment rather than punishment? at least then our laws wouldn't be blatant hypocrisy?
The difference is that most drug laws have been successful in keeping them in the fringes of society. Yes they are still a problem, but not as large of a problem as they would have been without the laws that are in place.
One could make the argument that our efforts to regulate illegal drugs have failed every bit as spectacularly as alcohol prohibition, in exactly the same ways.
Our drug laws are not perfect, but they are much more successful than what happened during the prohibition era. They manage to limit most drug use in the fringes of society.
You mean aside from the abundant health-care related costs or the many reports of drug related crime.
If those drug related crimes are crimes because the drug is illegal, you're defeating your own point. If it's due to theft, then it's not a valid point to begin with, theft happens already whether it's of drugs or anything else people want, but can't get.
While i am open to consider other currently illegal substance, (especially marrijuana which has been proven to have beneficial effects) crack is one drug that i stand firm must remain illegal as it is possibly the most dangerous of all drugs.
That may be true, but that doesn't say why it should be illegal. It's not harming you, it's only harming the crack addict.
As far as crime goes, and being a danger to society, what makes marijuana any better than crack?
I am not talking about possession crimes, i am talking about theft and homicides that have been motivated by crack cocaine. There are examples in the article i linked in my previous comment.
You don't think people have never been motivated to kill over other things? If finding a motivation to kill over it, is something worth banning, then the internet would be history.
If I want to do something dangerous, who are you to stop me? If I say, I am going to sit in my house and do crack and I'm not going to hurt anyone other than myself, how does my doing crack affect you? It doesn't. And if it doesn't affect you in any way, shape, or form, you have no right to keep me from doing it.
Just go herbal,even seventeen thousand chamomile teabags in a teapot woll do the same as 2 valium,might cost the same as a year's worth of crack,but think of the benefits to the farmer/ecomomy when you buy out his whole crop to have a cuppa.Do what you want,the government should sell it to you.
The problem with that is what people put in their body has an impact on how they interact with people in public. If you're out in the open with other people involved, being under the influence makes you a threat to them.
I agree that if you're in your own home the state shouldn't be able to search or pry, but elsewhere we must continue to be stringent. So, as long as it is already assured that you cannot harm others by doing such a thing, it's generally OK.
The Governments job to negotiate with foreign countries and protect it's borders. If someone wants to get high off the ground then as long as it is in their own home who should stop them. As long as it doesn't tramp on other's then it's fine.
I hope your government stops you from using meth. Doing meth not only endangers you, but also those around you. There is no telling how the BRAIN DAMAGE you receive by using meth will affect you, but I remember hearing about a parent in AZ who cut the hands and feet off their 10 month old daughter while in a meth induced psychosis. That's just one of many stories I could relate. Meth is a drug that is so bad it blurs the line for me regarding the "there are no victims but the user" logic
Now I personally am of the position that great injustices are carried out everyday against drug dealers and users. They are kidnapped away from their families and punished when they should be left alone or receiving treatment. But dude! in the interest of brain health...stay away from meth.
No its the person job on what they decide to put in their body because its their body not the governments. That would be weird if the government was in charge of our bodies.
Weird, but it is that way. It is illegal to use pot, meth, cocaine, e.t.c I am not in support of the use of these drugs, just the legality of using them.
No i don't, but i am a pre-med student and have learned in quite a few of the courses i have already taken the long-lasting effects of certain drugs such as cocaine.
Besides the added benefit of some lovely population control, I really don't think the government should be all too invasive when it comes to the needs and desires of the individual.
That being said, a lot of these drugs are outlawed because of what people who take them do to others. Although, strangely, alcohol is still legal. Not that I hate that. Boozin' is fun.
As long as I am not endangering anyone else, I can put whatever the hell I want in my body. That's like the government saying that I can't go to Mcdonalds and eat a Big Mac everyday. I can snort cocaine everyday and endanger my health just like I can eat fast food everyday and get diabetes and heart disease. They should legalize weed again like it was years ago though. I see no harm in doing a little of that every once in a while though.