Should kids be able to do drugs at the age of eighteen
I am on the no side because if kids at the age of eighteen and they do drugs they will have health care issues later in life and they could die at a young age
Yes. They should be able to
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No. They shouldn't be able to
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Eighteen may be a little young, but I agree with the general principle. People should have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies, so long as they don't hurt anyone else (directly). There are health risks associated with many things we do. Where do we draw the line? Smokers? Adults with Type II Diabetes? Motorcyclists? Kids playing high school sports? It's not that clear cut in my mind. Side: Yes. They should be able to
1
point
Yes, at eighteen they're responsible for their own lives. Such freedom of choice would invoke nature's ''national selection'' process whereby the weak and feeble minded sub-classes of a species are eliminated leaving the strong to survive and propagate their kind, thus enabling mankind to graduate to the next advanced level in the continuous evolutionary process. Maybe, just maybe, there was a time some decades ago when the deadly health hazards of drugs, including tobacco and 'Mr. Booze' were not widely known. However, apart from those weirdos who have been living on the moon since they were born, everyone else knows the life threatening dangers of drugs. So, in their knowledge or ignorance of what they're doing, let the pleasure seeking lotus eaters enjoy their short lives and leave more room for the rest of us. Side: Yes. They should be able to
1
point
They should be able to, but they should be held 100% legally accountable for everything they do under the influence. A drug habit should not excuse anyone from wrongdoing whatsoever. Someone who commits a crime, petty or major, under the influence of alcohol, should not have the option to take a suspended sentence with the caveat that he attends AA. If he is legitimately an alcoholic, he can certainly be directed to AA, but not in lieu of his sentence. He should still face whatever charges are appropriate to the crime he committed, fines, prison time, community service, etc. Same thing for any other type of drug. Heroin addicts who commit crimes undergo mandatory monitored detox, and once complete, serve their sentence. NA should be offered to them to help them, but should not be a replacement for their jail time. Of course, none of this touches on the problems with our legal system and prisons in particular, which are in a sorry state... but conceptually, giving addicts a way to get out of the consequences of their actions (even if it means getting clean) is enabling them in a way. Side: Yes. They should be able to
The ways in which we harm ourselves are myriad. Prohibiting or otherwise restricting a particular form of self-abuse (e.g. "drugs"), whatever the justification, is ultimately impractical and even potentially problematic. The retributive and authoritarian approach has been repeatedly demonstrated as ineffective relative to alternatives such as prevention and rehabilitation that do not in restrict behavior but rather support people to make healthier choices. Side: Yes. They should be able to
Yes, they should be. Why? Because they demand, if they dont get it they're gonna get it from the black market from illegal means so I think legalising it to them is a better way. If they are caught getting it illegally then there's jail, when they still have their future ahead of them. I think it's way better to give it to them rather than making them suffer for it. Side: Yes. They should be able to
|
Except for medically prescribed pharmaceuticals I would question the need to do drugs at all. There are enough problems with tobacco and alcohol use to go into the why's and wherefore's of illicit drugs. The question we need to ask is why do people need to use these drugs and deal with that at its source rather than argue at what age people should be doing drugs. With an increasing number of people are being arrested for drug driving and developing side effects that adversely alter their behaviour, the social effects are already becoming harmful and spilling over into the general community. Side: No. They shouldn't be able to
1
point
The question was should they be ABLE to do drugs, not should they do drugs. No one but your drug dealer thinks you should do addictive and harmful drugs, the question is wether society should have the legal authority to make that decision for you. Side: Yes. They should be able to
I agree that the question is missing the crux of the issue. The most successful practice for combating the use and abuse of substances that are harmful to those taking them or others is not making the substance illegal, because that does not get at the cause. Support programs and rehabilitation are generally more successful precisely because they address the causes. Side: No. They shouldn't be able to
1
point
Certainly not;Drugs are directly associated with life-risks and non-prescribed drugs shouldn't ever be taken by anyone not just only 18years kids.Drugs play mental,psychological havoc upon anybody,forcing them to go into depression(to the extent of compelling a guy to commit suicide),Should be avoided at all costs. Side: No. They shouldn't be able to
|
