CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
33
Yes, it is the Gov's job No victim no crime
Debate Score:67
Arguments:52
Total Votes:69
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, it is the Gov's job (22)
 
 No victim no crime (27)

Debate Creator

eHamilton(42) pic



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, it is the Gov's job

Side Score: 34
VS.

No victim no crime

Side Score: 33
2 points

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.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job

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.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job
eHamilton(42) Disputed
1 point

You picked the wrong side then, I'm not asking "is it", I'm asking "should it be".

Side: No victim no crime
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
2 points

No, you asked is it.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job

Crack Cocaine should never be used.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

Why? Who shouldn't use it? Will the random crack head down the street's use of the drug affect you?

Side: No victim no crime
1 point

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.

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2007/12/ chronicle photoillustrationke.html

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job

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.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job

Owing one's body is critical to the philosophy of freedom, and nanny rules only restrict this right.

Side: No victim no crime
Stickers(1037) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job
2 points

It is my decision what I put into my body. As long as I do not endanger anyone else, I am doing no harm.

Side: No victim no crime
2 points

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.

Side: No victim no crime
1 point

You can put anything into your body as long as it doesn't harm you or another being.

Just don't put like drugs/alcohol into your body.

Side: No victim no crime
eHamilton(42) Disputed
1 point

But drugs are what this debate is about. If I wanted to put meth in to my body, it is my decision to make. Not the government's.

Side: No victim no crime
atypican(4875) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job
1 point

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.

Side: No victim no crime
1 point

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.

Side: No victim no crime

People know what they are doing with or without warnings.

Side: No victim no crime
1 point

I disagree. Most people do not have medical degrees and are not aware of every possible outcome that might result by taking a certain drug.

Side: Yes, it is the Gov's job
1 point

You don't have to have a degree knowing what and what won't harm your body.

Side: No victim no crime
1 point

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.

Side: No victim no crime

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.

Side: No victim no crime