Legalization of Marijuana

[KaffeinE 86]

Legalize, with the same restrictions as alcohol. Mary Jane is less dangerous (short and long term) than either tobacco or alcohol. Ask the World Health Organization.

 

[VeilsideR33sub]

Of course .

Here's an experiment
Find two people ; one who only like alcohol and drinks it on a daily basis , another who only uses a form of marijuana and on a daily basis .

Have them the same sex , weight and general stable health .

Ask of them prior to the experiment what they consider to be a comfortable daily consumption viewed as the first hour of consumption in that day.

Tell them to take the weekend off , seat them and ply them with their respective hourly dosages every hour for the weekend , with an agreed break beforehand for a lying-down period ( say four hours ) .

Note their behaviour ; Will either of them refuse a dosage ? Will either of them need medical attention ? How well to either of them respond to simple tasks and/or non-invasive tests ( nothing designed to humiliate or tax , just , can't think of the term , measurements ,metrics of )? What food will either request ?

Extrapolate to long term usage .

 

[Ram-Rod]

No...I think it's bulls*it. Whoever thought it should be legal in the first place is plain out of his mind.

 

[Max Powers]

You really brought this thread back up just to make a completely useless comment?

 

[King Crockery]

I'm deeply against the legalization of marijuana, as i've seen so many lives go wrong with marijuana as a port drug :/ I know that when someone says something bad about marijuana, there's always someone to reply with something like "Marijuana is good for you, when compared to alcohol." You cannot compare marijuana with tobacco and alcohol directly, because it has different effects on short and long term usage. The risks of alcohol and tobacco are well known because they're so widely used around the globe, but cannabis has been more of an "underground" substance because it's illegal in most countries. Over here people who use cannabis usually take it under affection of alcohol or stronger drugs such as amphetamine. I've also seen people who use cannabis in excessive amounts to turn into passive, boring doll like persons. And i just hate such lowlife.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

I think drugs are bad but that the laws FOR drugs dont mean anything for drug users really.....

it's about how well people can control themselves. And if someone would use drugs if it was legal, but wouldn't if it was illegal......he just doesn't understand what drugs really is....

 

[Danoff]

I'm deeply against the legalization of marijuana, as i've seen so many lives go wrong with marijuana as a port drug :/ I know that when someone says something bad about marijuana, there's always someone to reply with something like "Marijuana is good for you, when compared to alcohol." You cannot compare marijuana with tobacco and alcohol directly, because it has different effects on short and long term usage. The risks of alcohol and tobacco are well known because they're so widely used around the globe, but cannabis has been more of an "underground" substance because it's illegal in most countries. Over here people who use cannabis usually take it under affection of alcohol or stronger drugs such as amphetamine. I've also seen people who use cannabis in excessive amounts to turn into passive, boring doll like persons. And i just hate such lowlife.

^^ What does all of that have to do with whether it is legal? Sure it's bad for people, lots of things are bad for people. That doesn't mean they should be illegal. French Fries cause heart attacks, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to eat french fries.

Bottom line - who cares if you don't like it or think it's a bad idea? Does it affect you if someone else does it? No. So why the hell should it be illegal?

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

It's not to compare to french fries. The effects of drugs should scare you off enough IMO. The FACTS and stuff doesn't mean anything compared to a fries addict or a drug addict. Lol I never heard about fries addicts, fat food addicts maybe though....but thats a compiled bunch of stuff that most of the time isn't limited to fries only.

The drug users I've seen have bad lives, people that have been addicted to drugs before say it feels good at the time but it really messes up your life. It's the aftereffects that should be concidered too.

Someone who's addicted to certain food is more likely to be happier than a drug addict. Dont ask me to prove it, it's just something I can notice from everything I've seen about the 2 subjects. And fact is that the way you feel can drastically change ur health. If you feel depressed by drugs, I'm sure the health risks will increase.

So dont take into account only the DIRECT way drugs is dangerous. The second way is what I just explained.

Maybe a bit more important if you're using drugs and get addicted, you might not WANT to live as long as you would really be able to. Drug users die of overdosis too, there's way more stuff going on around drugs than fries so thats not a good comparison.

 

[Danoff]

It's not to compare to french fries. The effects of drugs should scare you off enough IMO. The FACTS and stuff doesn't mean anything compared to a fries addict or a drug addict. Lol I never heard about fries addicts, fat food addicts maybe though....but thats a compiled bunch of stuff that most of the time isn't limited to fries only.

The drug users I've seen have bad lives, people that have been addicted to drugs before say it feels good at the time but it really messes up your life. It's the aftereffects that should be concidered too.

Someone who's addicted to certain food is more likely to be happier than a drug addict. Dont ask me to prove it, it's just something I can notice from everything I've seen about the 2 subjects. And fact is that the way you feel can drastically change ur health. If you feel depressed by drugs, I'm sure the health risks will increase.

So dont take into account only the DIRECT way drugs is dangerous. The second way is what I just explained.

Maybe a bit more important if you're using drugs and get addicted, you might not WANT to live as long as you would really be able to. Drug users die of overdosis too, there's way more stuff going on around drugs than fries so thats not a good comparison.

Hello, my name is Dan, and I'm addicted to French Fries.

You sidestepped the entire point of my post, which is that people do things that are bad for them all the time. If they don't infringe on your rights at all, how does that justify making it illegal? You can't protect people from themselves. That's part of what America is about, being free to make your own decisions and decide how to live your life. That should include smoking pot or snorting coke if that's something you want to do with YOUR life.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Yeah I agree with ur final opinion, I only dont think drugs is as simple as french fries really. Thats all.

I think, people are well informed about drugs already. The ones that are not, and really want to use drugs are bound to be addicts anyway.
I think people can be free enough for it, but I also think that, some people might just think "hmm I'm kinda curious" but that once it'll be legalized they'll back off on their own somehow. I wouldn't immediatly begin on drugs I would more think like "but drugs are bad right? Why is it legalized now?" It would leave me intimidated you can actually get this stuff legal.

The only REAL FLAW I think of right now is that, with the combination of legal firearms and stuff in the US, smuggling and criminality might rise VERY MUCH, it would be a legal business and it would give another option to get money your money. Then if there will be fights about it, I dunno how it works, they got a real easy way to solve it by using their "legal weapons".

Something like french fries smuggling wont happen in a billion years believe me

 

[Danoff]

The only REAL FLAW I think of right now is that, with the combination of legal firearms and stuff in the US, smuggling and criminality might rise VERY MUCH, it would be a legal business and it would give another option to get money your money. Then if there will be fights about it, I dunno how it works, they got a real easy way to solve it by using their "legal weapons".

It's not smuggling or ciminal if it's legal. Cocaine and Pot would become an IMPORT rather than smuggled-contraband.

What does this have to do with guns? If pot is legal, companies will sell it like soda or chewing tobacco. They won't use guns, they'll use advertisements, slogans, and labels. Making it legal would literally take the criminal element out of drugs completely.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Well it WILL be smuggling because in order to make money you have to ship to other countries. I live in Holland and it's in the newspapers here all the time because of legal drugs.

Drug gangs are all over the place here and it's not that in Holland it's a big issue but if they're gonna ship it to curacao or other countries THEN it becomes smuggling and if the US legalizes it, it will still be smugling for the country your exporting to it too.

You must realize, if drugs get legal there, it will be an important illegal exporter because gangs will obviously set up connections outside of the US where the drugs is worth MUCH more money cause it's just harder to get because it's illegal there.

 

[Danoff]

Well it WILL be smuggling because in order to make money you have to ship to other countries. I live in Holland and it's in the newspapers here all the time because of legal drugs.

Drug gangs are all over the place here and it's not that in Holland it's a big issue but if they're gonna ship it to curacao or other countries THEN it becomes smuggling and if the US legalizes it, it will still be smugling for the country your exporting to it too.

You must realize, if drugs get legal there, it will be an important illegal exporter because gangs will obviously set up connections outside of the US where the drugs is worth MUCH more money cause it's just harder to get because it's illegal there.

Ok, but explain to me why I care about smuggling that occurs in other countries. If they're stupid enough to make it illegal, let them deal with the consequences. Most illegal substances would be made/grown here anyway.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Ok, but explain to me why I care about smuggling that occurs in other countries. If they're stupid enough to make it illegal, let them deal with the consequences. Most illegal substances would be made/grown here anyway.

Well if it has such an effect to other countries I dont think the US is allowed to make this decision without even argueing with other countries.

To point out drugs is worse than fries. BTW Tell me, would you go onto drugs no problem instead of fries, would you dare if you wanted to?
Or would you be carefull with it because it's actually something very different than fries?
I'm sure that if you would swap to drugs no problem because "ah well it's the same thing as fries right?" you are really underestimating the power of drugs

It's just a fact that drugs should be taken 10 times more serious then fries my friend....

 

[Famine]

Well if it has such an effect to other countries I dont think the US is allowed to make this decision without even argueing with other countries.

Why not? Must other countries approve every law Holland makes?

To point out drugs is worse than fries. BTW Tell me, would you go onto drugs no problem instead of fries, would you dare if you wanted to?
Or would you be carefull with it because it's actually something very different than fries?
I'm sure that if you would swap to drugs no problem because "ah well it's the same thing as fries right?" you are really underestimating the power of drugs

It's just a fact that drugs should be taken 10 times more serious then fries my friend....

You miss the point danoff is making.

It doesn't matter if drugs are bad for you - or smoking, chips, skiing, licking mildew off your kitchen ceiling or anything you care to mention. No-one is saying that you MUST have them - only that if other people WANT to use them, and it causes no harm to anyone else but the person who has chosen to take that risk, why should the state get involved at all?

danoff's "fries" argument was that legislating against things which are bad for you on the sole grounds that they are bad for you has no logical or ethical grounding. Exactly HOW bad must something be for your health before it becomes illegal?

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Exactly HOW bad must something be for your health before it becomes illegal?

It's simple, fries are allowed and drugs go over the boundry where it should be allowed IMO.

And everwhere the drugs are forbidden, it's going good so far for the drug use right? Why allow it then all of a sudden? It's like supporting it, the laws arent such an influence on drugs anyway, but let there be SOMETHING that should prevent people from taking drugs.

I dont mind if they legalize it, the people choose for themselves, but if we can prevent some people to make an error in how dangerous drugs is, why wouldn't we?

It's just that, if you let it be illegal it has no side effects whatsoever, it's only gonna save some people from making a mistake, nothing wrong about that right. It's still not my problem, but why not help others too if you can?

 

[Famine]

It's simple, fries are allowed and drugs go over the boundry where it should be allowed IMO.

And where is that boundary?

The problem with sliding scales is that logic slides right off them.

And everwhere the drugs are forbidden, it's going good so far for the drug use right?

Let's compare that with all the places where, say, heroin is legal.

Oh right, there aren't any.

You have no reference point to assume that heroin being illegal makes for a better society than one where heroin is legal.

Why allow it then all of a sudden? It's like supporting it, the laws arent such an influence on drugs anyway, but let there be SOMETHING that should prevent people from taking drugs.

Education?

I dont mind if they legalize it, the people choose for themselves, but if we can prevent some people to make an error in how dangerous drugs is, why wouldn't we?

It's just that, if you let it be illegal it has no side effects whatsoever, it's only gonna save some people from making a mistake, nothing wrong about that right. It's still not my problem, but why not help others too if you can?

And in your attempts to protect some people you have far-reaching effects on ALL people. Why stop everyone from doing something because you're afraid someone might hurt themselves?

 

[Vasco]

Well alcohol is legal, and that's quite a damaging drug in the long and short term. It's the same thing with tobacco, so I can't see why Marijuana shouldn't be legalised. You have a choice to stay away from it or take it, no one is forcing you to have it if it is legalised.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

And where is that boundary?

The problem with sliding scales is that logic slides right off them.

It takes some time for people to learn eachothers boundries, I cant explain you my boundries in one post because I should name everything thats accepted and not in my boundries.

If you wanna know WHERE my boundry is, just ask me some things and you will get to know, much easier than me naming everything you can have an opinion on, and say if it's allowed or not in my boundries.

Let's compare that with all the places where, say, heroin is legal.

Oh right, there aren't any.

You have no reference point to assume that heroin being illegal makes for a better society than one where heroin is legal.

We're not talking about heroin only here, I live in Holland where drugs IS allowed to some degree, and I know kids that are already on their way to become addicted to drugs, and really, you would wish a law could stop them. But there isn't one....

IMO you need everything you can to prevent people from taking drugs, like the kids I have seen here.

Education?

What kinda comment is that?! I said something that shows I care about people and dont want them to be addicted. And there are no side effects of drugs being illegal, it's just not allowed, and it will prevent some people from getting into touch with this toxic stuff.

And in your attempts to protect some people you have far-reaching effects on ALL people.

Are the "far reaching effects", side effects of drugs when being illegal compared to when drugs are legal? Name some side effects of drugs being illegal, I'm really curious.....

Why stop everyone from doing something because you're afraid someone might hurt themselves?

You wont stop them, actually, it wont require any effort to protect some people from drugs, by letting it stay illegal. And thats why the real question is:

Why legalize it, if it will only hurt people? Because you dont care?

Edit: Also

Well alcohol is legal, and that's quite a damaging drug in the long and short term. It's the same thing with tobacco, so I can't see why Marijuana shouldn't be legalised. You have a choice to stay away from it or take it, no one is forcing you to have it if it is legalised.

Lets think why alchohol and tabaco ISN'T illegal, it's harmfull so why should it be legal? Because it's too darn late to change anything about it. You cant expect people to stop drinking alchohol and stop smoking because it's far too late and it's far too popular now.
I think 90% of the people here has had alchohol before, and I'm sure there are LOTS of things where alchohol is a tradition. Drinking wine and eating turkey on Xmas for example. You cant make that illegal.

Drugs is toxic and isn't part of traditions in the US yet, so just prevent the same from happening with drugs by letting it stay illegal.

Just naming the question I have for Famine again, because I'm far more curious about that:
Why legalize it, if it will only hurt people? Because you dont care?

 

[Danoff]

It takes some time for people to learn eachothers boundries, I cant explain you my boundries in one post because I should name everything thats accepted and not in my boundries.

If you wanna know WHERE my boundry is, just ask me some things and you will get to know, much easier than me naming everything you can have an opinion on, and say if it's allowed or not in my boundries.

You can't explain where your boundary is because you don't draw a philosophical line. Your boundary is wherever you feel like it should be. If it feels wrong to you, you draw the line there. The problem with that is that everyone feels differently and you can't explain why your feeling is better than theirs. Try drawing the line based on some logical reasoning... like, for example "I own my body, and so I can put whatever substance I want into it. Other people own their own body, and so I cannot tell them what to do to it."

We're not talking about heroin only here, I live in Holland where drugs IS allowed to some degree, and I know kids that are already on their way to become addicted to drugs, and really, you would wish a law could stop them. But there isn't one....

IMO you need everything you can to prevent people from taking drugs, like the kids I have seen here.

Kids cannot be held responsible for their choices. That's why adults cannot be allowed to have sex with children, why children cannot be allowed to skip school, and why children cannot be trusted to understand the consequences of doing drugs. Drug use can be legal for adults, but illegal for children. It's the situation we have currently with alcohol and it works fairly well.

Why legalize it, if it will only hurt people? Because you dont care?

Why make it illegal if it doesn't hurt you? Because you want to run other people's lives? It's not that I don't care, it's that it isn't any of my business. I care more about letting people be free to make their own choices.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

You can't explain where your boundary is because you don't draw a philosophical line. Your boundary is wherever you feel like it should be. If it feels wrong to you, you draw the line there. The problem with that is that everyone feels differently and you can't explain why your feeling is better than theirs. Try drawing the line based on some logical reasoning... like, for example "I own my body, and so I can put whatever substance I want into it. Other people own their own body, and so I cannot tell them what to do to it."

Some boundries dont work that way, you can cross boundries that are far more complicated. This is a completely random example, if you are being insulted by someone for many things, moron idiot **** and **** and *****. At some point they have crossed your boundry. Now how do you make clear where that boundry is? By naming every word that might be insulting to people and saying wich one is allowed for you and wich not?

This is an example of a much more complicated boundry, and I cant explain where my boundry is. You CAN understand it for a large part I'm sure of that.

Now if I cant say "I own my body, and so I can put whatever substance I want into it. Other people own their own body, and so I cannot tell them what to do to it." or something like it, does that mean I cant have a boundry about this?

Kids cannot be held responsible for their choices. That's why adults cannot be allowed to have sex with children, why children cannot be allowed to skip school, and why children cannot be trusted to understand the consequences of doing drugs. Drug use can be legal for adults, but illegal for children. It's the situation we have currently with alcohol and it works fairly well.

Shouldn't even be allowed for adults, adults who use drugs DONT know the consequences of drugs if you ask me.

Out of curiousity using drugs? It isn't worth it, just a stupid reason, will only get you into trouble.

For forgetting problems? Never solves any problems, most of the time it will eventually only mess up your life more and give you more problems than you really had in the beginning.

If adults use drugs they dont know the about the consequences I just named so they're just like kids. Inresponsible judgement about drugs.

Why make it illegal if it doesn't hurt you?

Because it hurts others and I can prevent it?

Because you want to run other people's lives?

You are twisting my words....

It's not that I don't care, it's that it isn't any of my business.

Not much of a difference between them right?

I care more about letting people be free to make their own choices.

I havent seen any drug addict being happy because he had the decision to simply buy, use and get addicted to drugs. They wish someone stopped them and that drugs shouldn't be this available to the public.

If you think about it this way, you can do alot of stuff, you can release 7 brands of suicide pills to offer people some choice in life. You could release your new brand of Marijuana to rival with the 18 other brands available in your local grocery shop.

It's stupid...

 

[Famine]

It takes some time for people to learn eachothers boundries, I cant explain you my boundries in one post because I should name everything thats accepted and not in my boundries.

But don't you see that this is the point?

You are arbitrarily putting a pin on the "Scale of Harm" where everything below that point isn't harmful enough to be illegal and everything above it is too harmful to be legal.

YOU are defining that. It has absolutely no grounding in logic or rationality, but based on personal feeling alone. One cannot make law based on personal feeling - Law must be logical and must make sense.

For a start, how do you quantify how harmful something is? And why is something 1/1000th of a "Harm Point" below G-T-4-Fan's Pin of Danger not worth being illegal to you?

If you wanna know WHERE my boundry is, just ask me some things and you will get to know, much easier than me naming everything you can have an opinion on, and say if it's allowed or not in my boundries.

Again, not the point. The point is that law without logic is not law.

We're not talking about heroin only here, I live in Holland where drugs IS allowed to some degree, and I know kids that are already on their way to become addicted to drugs, and really, you would wish a law could stop them. But there isn't one....

Out of interest, how do you think a law would prevent this?

"Drugs" are illegal in the USA. Some drugs are legal in Holland. The USA has twice as many heroin addicts, per capita, than Holland.

IMO you need everything you can to prevent people from taking drugs, like the kids I have seen here.

Education?

What kinda comment is that?! I said something that shows I care about people and dont want them to be addicted.

A sensible one.

Educate people why drugs, or smoking, or alcohol, or unprotected sex with an anonymous partner, or BASE Jumping is bad for them. Tell them what it can/will do to their bodies. Then let them decide what they want to do with their own bodies. Don't just stand in front of them and say that x is bad, y is bad, z is bad and they're not allowed to do it.

If kids learn WHY things are bad for them, rather than just being told not to do things, then they can make rational, informed choices.

And there are no side effects of drugs being illegal, it's just not allowed, and it will prevent some people from getting into touch with this toxic stuff.

So again explain to me why the USA, where all drugs are banned, has twice as many heroin addicts per capita compared to Holland, where some soft drugs are "tolerated".

Are the "far reaching effects", side effects of drugs when being illegal compared to when drugs are legal? Name some side effects of drugs being illegal, I'm really curious.....

Simple. People are not allowed to choose what to do with their own bodies because they are not trusted to. That's your number 1 freedom straight out of the window.

Secondly you get police spending - that's money taken from taxpayers - wasted on pursuing, detaining and prosecuting people for doing something which causes absolutely no harm to anyone but themselves. How does this make sense? A drug addict who obtains his drug money through employment (legally) is causing absolutely no harm to society whatsoever (and is actually contributing through his work) and yet you're advocating turning him into a criminal, and "protecting society" by imprisoning him.

All because you don't like drugs. What harm was he causing you that you want to treat him like this?

Why legalize it, if it will only hurt people? Because you dont care?

Because people have the fundamental right to do what they want with their body. No-one can - or should - force them to either do or not do anything to their body, even if it would harm or even kill them. They should be taught WHY they shouldn't do things, but ultimately they should be allowed to choose for themselves.

Lets think why alchohol and tabaco ISN'T illegal, it's harmfull so why should it be legal? Because it's too darn late to change anything about it. You cant expect people to stop drinking alchohol and stop smoking because it's far too late and it's far too popular now.

There's 800,000 heroin addicts in the USA. That's half the population of Holland. So it looks like heroin is pretty popular too.

I think 90% of the people here has had alchohol before, and I'm sure there are LOTS of things where alchohol is a tradition. Drinking wine and eating turkey on Xmas for example. You cant make that illegal.

Why not? Why not ban drinking alcohol - after all it's very harmful, and you advocate banning things which are harmful.

Now you should be seeing the problem with the Scale of Harm.

Drugs is toxic

So is alcohol. Why do you think it's called "intoxication"?

and isn't part of traditions in the US yet

Never heard of the Hookahnanny? [/joke]

Shouldn't even be allowed for adults, adults who use drugs DONT know the consequences of drugs if you ask me.

So why did I get an "" face for daring to suggest that kids should be educated about why drugs might be bad for them?


I should note that I've never taken anything classed as "drugs" in my life. I have no desire to. But I also have no desire to see people forced stop doing things which cause no harm to anyone else, simply on a personal whim.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

snap*

I dont get the harm point stuff really. As for the comment you cant make it illegal by saying this. Thats not my goal, I'm defending it cause it's already a law.
The fact that this already is a law means it has logic behind it, so you cant say there isn't any logic for drugs being illegal.

Twice as much drug users in the US while being illegal? Well it doesn't have to be the cause it's illegal. If that would be the reason, every country should have higher drug figures cause it's illegal in almost every other country.

If drugs would be legalized, do you think the US would end up with the same percentage per cap..(what was it) as Holland?
I think it will only increase to a much worse figure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing thats a real good point is the freedom stuff, you have a right to decide about your own body, but it's like a 17 year old asking his/her parents for a tatoo...IMO

If it's illegal, it's less danger to anyone, thats a fact, and I think it's just up to someone's opinion to decide if this is more or less important than the right to do with your body as you like.

I think thats the conclusion....

 

[Danoff]

Thats not my goal, I'm defending it cause it's already a law.
The fact that this already is a law means it has logic behind it, so you cant say there isn't any logic for drugs being illegal.

...you're just not sure what it is.

The only thing thats a real good point is the freedom stuff, you have a right to decide about your own body, but it's like a 17 year old asking his/her parents for a tatoo...IMO

Where the general public is the 17 year old and you're the parent right?

If it's illegal, it's less danger to anyone, thats a fact,

Making it legal or illegal doesn't change it in any way. It's still just as much a danger to people, the only thing that's different is whether or not they'll go to jail for choosing to take the risk.

and I think it's just up to someone's opinion to decide if this is more or less important than the right to do with your body as you like.

Ok wait a minute. You think it's up to everyone to decide whether it is more or less important for them to have the right, than for them to prevent others from having the right?? What if they don't want to do it? Then they don't care if they have the right.

Here's an example. I don't like broccoli. I don't like the way it smells, I don't like the way it tastes. If I didn't care about social issues like this, I wouldn't care if broccoli were illegal tomorrow.

It's not about whether YOU want to do it. It's about whether you have the right to TELL OTHERS that they can't.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

No I'm not the parent, the law is and I just support the current law in the US.

And for the comment on your last quote, I dont get it but I think it's because you twisted my words again in this sentence: "Ok wait a minute. You think it's up to everyone to decide whether it is more or less important for them to have the right, than for them to prevent others from having the right??"

I think what I just said, I dont think what you are saying, I think:
That if you think the choice if your own body is more important than the "duty" I think we all have in this case for eachothers health. Thats it, so in other words, if you think

Everyone has the right to do with their body as they want

is more important than my arguement:

Why legalize it, if it will only hurt people?

then I cant change your opinion, and it's your choice to judge about what is better in this case. This is why voting for a new law is needed.

 

[Danoff]

You're still missing the basic issue here. "Why legalize it if it will only hurt people" is not an argument. It's a misunderstanding of what we're arguing about. The default, by the way, is legal, not illegal. So you must justify why something should be illegal, not the other way around.

Here's the basic fundamental argument. Do people have a right to put any substance into their body? That's it. Forget about the effects, or what you think they should do... the only question you need to ask yourself is whether people have a right to do what they want with their body. If the answer is yes, then drugs must be legal. If the answer is no, then you can go play games about what should be legal and what should not be.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

It's illegal almost everywhere am I wrong? It's illegal atm in the US right?

Edit: And why wouldn't it be my argument to support it to be illegal?
I think I'm responsible for a certain degree on this and so the wellfare of some people that might take drugs or not because of this in the future.

I think if I have a decision on whether to vote for or against this, I'm responsible for the health of some then.

 

[King Crockery]

You guys must remember that the more people use drugs, the more they'll inspire new users. So if you legalize a drug you'll get more users than with banning drugs.

 

[G-T-4-Fan]

Yeah but you will have to say why again and it takes ages to make prove it actually happens this way. I know what you mean though

 

[Danoff]

It's illegal almost everywhere am I wrong? It's illegal atm in the US right?

Yes, many drugs are illegal in the US.

So what about an answer to my question?

Do people have a right to put any substance into their body?