All drugs should be legal

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

It is still your choice. When did society decide that smoking is acceptable within the family? Drinking and smoking is acceptable by society , does that make it right to smoke and drink damaging yourself by societies consent?

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

It is still your choice. When did society decide that smoking is acceptable within the family? Drinking and smoking is acceptable by society , does that make it right to smoke and drink damaging yourself by societies consent?

Yes, it is still my choice as a member of 'a' society.
Acceptance of society is a gradual process.'When did society accepted'-can not be answered.My society never permitted me to smoke or drink in family.
Besides,Something acceptable to a particular society does not mean it is right in all societies.
Right/wrong,good /bad, legal/illegal are separate and relative concepts.Most of the values are different in different societies.
A bad action may be legal ,a right action may be illegal.
Drinking is not illegal but may be harmful.If a family/society accepts harmful things that simply shows immaturity of the particular family/society.
Acceptance of society is always expressed though individuals.
Individual has 'right' to choose anything and face consequences.

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

It is still your choice. When did society decide that smoking is acceptable within the family? Drinking and smoking is acceptable by society , does that make it right to smoke and drink damaging yourself by societies consent?

Yes, it is still my choice as a member of 'a' society.
Acceptance of society is a gradual process.'When did society accepted'-can not be answered.My society never permitted me to smoke or drink in family.
Besides,Something acceptable to a particular society does not mean it is right in all societies.
Right/wrong,good /bad, legal/illegal are separate and relative concepts.Most of the values are different in different societies.
A bad action may be legal ,a right action may be illegal.
Drinking is not illegal but may be harmful.If a family/society accepts harmful things that simply shows immaturity of the particular family/society.
Acceptance of society is always expressed though individuals.
Individual has 'right' to choose anything and face consequences.

So what society do you live in where smoking and drinking is not permitted? I have never known of any society where it is banned. If you allow one substance of danger to be consumed you can not demand that others are denied. You are making the claim that the individual should not take drugs because it affects others, so why allow drinking? We are not judging peoples maturity or common sense we are trying to arrive at the correct position to take over the use of drugs. It is blatantly apparent that banning them has had no effect and criminilising the user only makes the problem worse. I asked before do you believe a young girl who turns to prostitution to feed her addiction should be classified as a criminal? I believe the society that turns her into a criminal is immature, ignorant and pompous.

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

It is still your choice. When did society decide that smoking is acceptable within the family? Drinking and smoking is acceptable by society , does that make it right to smoke and drink damaging yourself by societies consent?

Yes, it is still my choice as a member of 'a' society.
Acceptance of society is a gradual process.'When did society accepted'-can not be answered.My society never permitted me to smoke or drink in family.
Besides,Something acceptable to a particular society does not mean it is right in all societies.
Right/wrong,good /bad, legal/illegal are separate and relative concepts.Most of the values are different in different societies.
A bad action may be legal ,a right action may be illegal.
Drinking is not illegal but may be harmful.If a family/society accepts harmful things that simply shows immaturity of the particular family/society.
Acceptance of society is always expressed though individuals.
Individual has 'right' to choose anything and face consequences.

So what society do you live in where smoking and drinking is not permitted? I have never known of any society where it is banned. If you allow one substance of danger to be consumed you can not demand that others are denied. You are making the claim that the individual should not take drugs because it affects others, so why allow drinking? We are not judging peoples maturity or common sense we are trying to arrive at the correct position to take over the use of drugs. It is blatantly apparent that banning them has had no effect and criminilising the user only makes the problem worse. I asked before do you believe a young girl who turns to prostitution to feed her addiction should be classified as a criminal? I believe the society that turns her into a criminal is immature, ignorant and pompous.

Society never ban anything.I belong to Indian society where smoking and drinking is not permitted in 'Family'traditionally.(I am not talking about some Westernized families) I was very precise in using words. Criminality is a legal concept.Society can not blame somebody as 'criminal' on the basis of social values.
If a family/society ,knowingly allows harmful drugs can only be called immature.So far as the example of a "girl turned to prostitution .." may be declared criminal if there is any law in that particular state otherwise it is a case of social pathology and should be treated sympathetically.
Banning drugs is not a solution to prevent harm.Education is the only way to stop drug's misuse.

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

But does society/family only have a right to influence me in a way that's good for my health? What if lighting up a joint brings you social acceptance with your peers? In this case, the desire for social acceptance is inhibiting health. If society has a right to make us feel obligated to act in healthy ways, then does it not also, by extension, have the right to obligate us to do unhealthy things? And what role does the law play in this? Does the government have the right to define these value judgements for us? What I mean is that, I ought to have the right to reject the idea that I am obligated to other people. You can believe that a person is incorrect to have this view, but you can't argue that he doesn't have the right to hold it.

There are many reasons, but ultimately it comes down to this: nobody should be able to decide what we put into our own bodies except us. It is that simple.

There is no reason to believe that your body is 'only' yours.
You born in a family , in a society,you are brought up to become 'you'by others.
Hence, when you decide 'what to do',you decide as a member of a society.All your are and should be guided by social acceptance.

But does society/family only have a right to influence me in a way that's good for my health? What if lighting up a joint brings you social acceptance with your peers? In this case, the desire for social acceptance is inhibiting health. If society has a right to make us feel obligated to act in healthy ways, then does it not also, by extension, have the right to obligate us to do unhealthy things? And what role does the law play in this? Does the government have the right to define these value judgements for us? What I mean is that, I ought to have the right to reject the idea that I am obligated to other people. You can believe that a person is incorrect to have this view, but you can't argue that he doesn't have the right to hold it.

What I understood from your statements that you are thinking in terms of 'right'.If I am a member of society/family my 'I'is developed through'we'.You have every 'right' to reject any view.I can not argue for argument sake if you want to hold any view.You are free to do anything to your health.The family/society may suffer because of their natural involvement in you but you are free and have 'right' do anything.

Have you ever thought about the fact that the illegal substances you decide to consume actually has a big effect on other people's lives? People around you.

Think about your relatives, the people who you work with, the person sitting next to you on the bus. When you don't have control over what you're doing who knows what could happen! When you're under the influence of drugs you're not yourself.
If you want to do drugs were nobody but yourself can get hurt, go ahead. Be my guest. That should be legal unless you have kids or anyone who needs you. I just think it's sad, that's all.

This is a complicated topic,especially in a country of free health care. I would say that yes cigarettes and drugs should be legal, but that by using them they should be excluded from free health care. A person who smokes should take the on responsibility of any future health problems that may be incurred. Having free will, means taking responsibility for one's actions.

This took a long time to read and type up. If something is vague, nonsensical or unclear please let me know.

A further point is that if we do not wish to be burdened by people who "make
themselves ill", then it would make more sense to disallow drug users access to public
healthcare, as opposed to outlawing drugs entirely and turning users into criminals. Either way,
people are going to continue using drugs and there will always be some kind of social burden as
a result.

I re read this post and posts leading up to it and I think it is just an example and is not what
pjkeeley personally believes but the idea that you would basically throw people away is so
unbelievable to me. A person who needs help should not be allowed help? Mental health is part of
health care.

> Those who overdose, those who let themselves get addicted, and those who suffer illnesses as a
result of their drug use, must be compelled to fund their own medical treatment.

I do not think a person can let themselves get addicted. I think that by the time you realise
it, its too late. I am sure people have done it on purpose but you cannot assume that they are
completely mentally competent and somehow do it to waste money in the healthcare system? Or why
are you saying someone would do this intentionally? What about suicides? Attempted or
successful. Are you suggesting depressed people should not be allowed health care?

Just because you can use drugs and be a productive member

of society does not mean everyone can.

Personally, I don't believe being a "productive" member of society is some kind of moral duty.
If industrial civilization as we know it collapses because no one wants to work, so be it. We
should be free to live the kind of life we want, so long as we inhibit nobody's freedom to do
the same.
Just an aside.

I agree. Society is not about the individual it is many individuals. You cannot reach
conclusions that work for everyone as everyone thinks differently and has different experiences.
I read many posts about what people personally believe and personally think, but those ideas
cannot become law or a design for a social system. As you can see from all the different
opinions in this single thread it is relatively easy to come to the conclusion that people have
different opinions and creating guidelines based on one persons idea will not work. The only thing
I have come up with to solve this is to allow everyone the freedom to live as they see fit.

Society never ban anything.I belong to Indian society where smoking and drinking is not
permitted in 'Family'traditionally.(I am not talking about some Westernized families) I was very
precise in using words. Criminality is a legal concept.Society can not blame somebody as
'criminal' on the basis of social values.
If a family/society ,knowingly allows harmful drugs can only be called immature. So far as the

example of a "girl turned to prostitution .." may be declared criminal if there is any law in

that particular state otherwise it is a case of social pathology and should be treated

sympathetically.
Banning drugs is not a solution to prevent harm.Education is the only way to stop drug's

misuse.

Kameshwar. Kudos!

------

Drugs should not be illegal


I'll try to explain my idea for society. It is to allow people to live how they want but to also
take care of each other. So many of the posts in this thread seemed very selfish. It felt as if
many people responded to this thread personally, as in took offense, as if legalizing drugs
would take money straight out of their bank accounts.

I can give a simple real life example. My Dad believes he should be able to choose to have
police, fire, emergency 911 service etc... only if people could opt out of the service. Now,
does the ambulance not come to your house if you need it? Yes it will. Even if yuo didn't pay
because human life is important. Drug addict or not if you need emergency care you can get it at
a hospital. Haven't you heard that no one gets a burglar alarm until after their house has been
broken into? Not to mention the logistics of checking to see if they opt in for police before
responding to the call.

The reason I brought that up is because it is related to legalizing drugs. One of the concerns
was health care costs. Necessary medical treatment should be approved regardless of how the
situation occurred. What if people decided to opt out of say cancer and AIDS medical care and
expected to pay less taxes as a result? It would be chaos and counterproductive as you would be
treated anyways.

Sometimes people have improper associations with terminology. I do not mean to argue semantics
but perception. It is not that drugs are to be legal. It is that they are not to be illegal. I
got the impression that people might associate legalized as a thumbs up to go out and do drugs.
Just because it is not illegal does not mean society encourages or condones drug use.

Now I'll have a go at the hurting others side of the argument. People do stupid things and get
others killed or injured. Whether its being drunk, high, or having mental problems. Society only
allows so much whether it is an illegal substance or not. If you are irresponsible enough you
will get thrown into jail, forbidden from substances and required to take screenings and/or
mandatory substance abuse counseling, rehab etc... Are all of these things in place only to
protect others? No. They are in place to help people who need it. It is this way now and if
drugs are not illegal anymore this will continue. When you think of a drug addict harming
himself and others, violently or financially, you might think how dare that person cause so many
problems and cost society so much. Toss them out on their butts and don't help them. This may
seem ok to you until it is your son, daughter, fiance, wife, husband, best friend. Suddenly
because you know them personally it is different and this person matters and needs help. All you
have to do is imagine this about other people. They also need help.

I believe people should be able to do whatever they please to their own bodies and get '1 chance' to do so.

This means as soon as their behaviour/health requires social intervention i.e. arrest through police, use of the hospital etc then they use their '1 chance' of no comeback care. After this '1 chance' if they choose to continue to put strain on society then they must pay an individually based forfeit. This is not directly financial and, as much as I don't want to plug my book I also don't want to tell all!, could take the form of transparency to the rest of society in that this person chooses to use drugs despite the negative impact it has on the rest of us. This means employers may take a dim view (for whatever reason) and ultimately the person will have a choice between continuing behaviour which has become negative to society or contributing in a more positive way.

So I agree our bodies are ours to do with what we please however as human beings we have a responsibility to the rest of society not to put unnecessary strain on that society directly or indirectly.

I believe people should be able to do whatever they please to their own bodies and get '1 chance' to do so.

This means as soon as their behaviour/health requires social intervention i.e. arrest through police, use of the hospital etc then they use their '1 chance' of no comeback care. After this '1 chance' if they choose to continue to put strain on society then they must pay an individually based forfeit. This is not directly financial and, as much as I don't want to plug my book I also don't want to tell all!, could take the form of transparency to the rest of society in that this person chooses to use drugs despite the negative impact it has on the rest of us. This means employers may take a dim view (for whatever reason) and ultimately the person will have a choice between continuing behaviour which has become negative to society or contributing in a more positive way.

So I agree our bodies are ours to do with what we please however as human beings we have a responsibility to the rest of society not to put unnecessary strain on that society directly or indirectly.

So why not give that reasoning to smoking ,drinking, dangerous sport, driving and just living in general? If you legalised drugs the criminal element would disappear and billions would be saved not combatting drug dealers. Prohibition is more expensive than education and the health costs involved . When criminals have no income from drugs the need to encourage new addicts disappears. It is a well known fact that fighting the drug trade causes more harm and is more expensive than the health costs treating addicts.

@ xris
Research on how drugs and smoking damage the body is solid, and it is known by almost everyone. So here i don't think you have a case. You bring up a different point of should a criminal receive medical care, I think serious crimes should exclude one from the health care system. Where do you draw the line? Drug dealers should be excluded from the health care system in my belief. As for for-profit dare devil stunts, they are done by professionals, so I don't know how you would calculate the risk.

@ xris
Research on how drugs and smoking damage the body is solid, and it is known by almost everyone. So here i don't think you have a case. You bring up a different point of should a criminal receive medical care, I think serious crimes should exclude one from the health care system. Where do you draw the line? Drug dealers should be excluded from the health care system in my belief. As for for-profit dare devil stunts, they are done by professionals, so I don't know how you would calculate the risk.

I thought we were debating the reasoning behind legalising drugs not the morals on treating criminals for health issues?

I wish I could post the pictures of this woman and hope you go to the site. She died very young because of meth, and if her life has any meaning, it is to prevent others from following in her foot steps.

http://www.hollywoodpolice.org/special_units/cat.htm

My daughter was a meth addict. Her husband went to prison and my grandchildren were made wards of the state. The drug addict makes victims of everyone in his/her life. I have zero tolerance for the idea that this drug should be legal.

I wish I could post the pictures of this woman and hope you go to the site. She died very young because of meth, and if her life has any meaning, it is to prevent others from following in her foot steps.

http://www.hollywoodpolice.org/special_units/cat.htm

My daughter was a meth addict. Her husband went to prison and my grandchildren were made wards of the state. The drug addict makes victims of everyone in his/her life. I have zero tolerance for the idea that this drug should be legal.

So how did the idea that they are illegal help your daughter. I abhor the use of drugs but that makes me more convinced that making them illegal contributes to the problem. Do not assume those who want them made legal think they are actually good for you. We are debating the issue from a rational perspective not an emotional subjective situation. Do you believe if we banned smoking or drinking the criminals would not encourage us and sell us illegal products? Education and understanding the human condition should be our motivation. The war on drugs is not working, criminals want it to remain illegal ,they need new recruits.