The most valid point in favour of drug legalisation

[Janig]

Hi guys. What is the most valid point in favour of drug legalisation? This topic is designed for us to reach a consensus. This topic isnt about whether drugs should be legal, but about what we agree as a group is the best pro-drug-legalisation point. poll

• I think the best pro drug legalisation point is the fact our economy is slow, therefor fresh ideas are appealing.

• Ziggy Stardust: The ability to monitor the product and the vendors and give the users more rights and protection.
  
  
• Perfection/GoodSarmatian: Clinton, Bush and Obama all smoked pot and still turned out to be highly successful people

poll: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=488068

 

[Borachio]

I think the best argument is that people have autonomy.

It's a flawed argument, though, imo.

 

[Janig]

In English please Borachio...

 

[Borachio]

Oh sorry. I mean: people are entitled to do what they please with their own bodies.

It's a point of view. And quite a strong one.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The ability to monitor the product and the vendors and give the users more rights and protection.

 

[Janig]

Ziggy Stardust thats a good point to think about.

Borachio people arent entitled to do what they want with their own bodies, what planet are you living on.


Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Borachio]

I did say it was a flawed argument, didn't I?

But in what ways do you feel constrained in respect to what you can do with your own body?

 

[Samson]

To me the most obvious argument is the societal harm of prohibition. From the vast profits available to criminals, through the criminalization of large sections of the population to the harm done by addicts to pay the very high prices for their fix (burglary etc.).

 

[Janig]

Samson could your point fall under 'fragmentation of society'? There are people who object to drug legality, so fragmentation of society might occur anyway. Also while I may agree with your sentiment, we're here to provide positive points in favour of drug legalisation, rather than complaining about the way it is

Borachio writing something is flawed does not justify the fact it's flawed. Youre welcome to leave this discussion if you arent going to contribute.

 

[Borachio]

You wanted what I thought was the most valid point in favour of drug legalisation.

I gave it to you.

I do think personal sovereignty is the most valid point. I think it's a very strong point. I do recognize though that it's a flawed argument. But it is extremely hard to argue against. And delineate exactly where the flaw lies.

You either agree with me or not.

 

[ace99]

I find compelling the notion that prohibition of drugs leads to an increase of violence and serves to turn what should be treated as public health issue into a criminal issue that empowers the privatized prison-police-security-industrial complex and thereby serves to perpetuate a never-ending cycle of drug-use, poverty, crime and corresponding harsh punishments which continually force people back into the drug trade and drug use.

 

[Stapel]

I'm with Borachio here. It's nobody's god damn business whether I pollute my own body with poison.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The most valid point should be evidence whether a certain policy makes does more harm than good.

I'm with Borachio here. It's nobody's god damn business whether I pollute my own body with poison.

It is if what you put in your body is likely to make you a threat or a burden to society. Outcomes should always matter more than vague and simplistic principles.

 

[Borachio]

It is if what you put in your body is likely to make you a threat or a burden to society. Outcomes should always matter more than vague and simplistic principles.

Yes.

The trouble with this line of reasoning though, it seems to me, is: Where does it begin and end?

Should eating fatty foods be illegal too? Since they're as liable to make you a burden to society as many illegal drugs.

Talking about outcomes is simply utilitarianism, isn't it?

 

[Perfection]

Clinton, Bush and Obama all smoked pot and still turned out to be highly successful people.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yes.

The trouble with this line of reasoning though, it seems to me, is: Where does it begin and end?

This is to be decided from case to case. The 'trouble' is that it requires discussion, evaluation and the occasional judgement call.

Should eating fatty foods be illegal too? Since they're as liable to make you a burden to society as many illegal drugs.

Now that's just strawmaning the issue. A Big Mac isn't good for you but it's harmless compared to heroin.

Talking about outcomes is simply utilitarianism, isn't it?

Yes. Nothing wrong with utilitarianism per se as long as you don't throw ethics and principles out of the window.

 

[Janig]

The most valid point should be evidence whether a certain policy makes does more harm than good.

GoodSarmatian your point coincides nicely with Perfection's:

Clinton, Bush and Obama all smoked pot and still turned out to be highly successful people.

As Perfection's point is more specific than yours I will use that to cover both, unless you want to use a different example? Btw I didnt know Clinton and Obama tried weed thanks.

...

ace99 I dont think you can prove the never ending cycle aspect. Also whether something is a public health issue or a criminal issue is neither here nor there, the two departments arent mutually exclusive so overall Im not convinced yet. Maybe you can change my mind.

I'm with Borachio here. It's nobody's god damn business whether I pollute my own body with poison

Yes Stapel you are with Borachio here, in so far as you write like a child. One doesnt use It's to start a sentence in English. Your sentence would make more sense like 'I pollute my own body with poison and it's Nobody's business'.

You either agree with me or not.

Nobody agrees with you.

Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree fully with Borachio.

 

[Borachio]

I don't.

But seriously:

This is to be decided from case to case. The 'trouble' is that it requires discussion, evaluation and the occasional judgement call.

True

Now that's just strawmaning the issue. A Big Mac isn't good for you but it's harmless compared to heroin.

I don't agree. Obesity is a real looming huge societal problem. I am told.

According to some, heroin is itself largely harmless. It's the associated lifestyle that damages. But, please note well, I'm no apologist for heroin.

Yes. Nothing wrong with utilitarianism per se as long as you don't throw ethics and principles out of the window.

The major problem with utilitarianism, as far as I recall, is that there is no truly self-regarding action. And there's other big big problems with it too. But, hey, I forget all that stuff.

 

[Janig]

Well each of the 3 ideas we have seem really convincing to me.

Clinton, Bush and Obama all smoked pot and were successful
Our economy is slow, therefor fresh ideas are appealing
Monitoring the product, giving users more rights and protection

I'll start a poll with these ideas sometime to gauge how popular they are and you can chime in here if youre really keen. Im undecided which is the best idea, for now Im still welcoming new ones.

I agree fully with Borachio.

Youre fully agreeing that there should be no consensus on life: Youre in the wrong topic.