[Big Jimboi]

While this alludes to the often discussed topic of marijuana legalisation this is not such. This is an argument about the legitimacy of the state and government regulating or attempting to regulate what we put into our bodies in general. It is only fair that I give a starting viewpoint so here goes:

My personal view is that an adult (which I'll define as 18 to any "But what age is an adult?" arguments) should be allowed to use their own judgement in deciding what foods, drinks, drugs and even fossil fuels (read a story once about a guy who was arrested for drinking petrol). An adult should be allowed full freedom in how they treat they're body and if they're decision is detrimental to their body then so be it as to restrict something as private as control over your own body is clearly spitting in the face of freedom, a value revered by our many societies, a value that only few individuals will show abhorrence to and a value that lies behind many great martyrdoms and sacrifices in history.

Obviously such freedom could lead to uninformed decisions and so instead of our school's teaching their current scaremongering on alcohol, fast food and drugs (to pick the most common) they would need to teach a balanced curriculum with a less one-sided archaic view on our various vices.
This sort of education would lead to more mature and informed decisions being made based on reliable, up-to-date science rather than being told to avoid fast food, drink and drugs all together to achieve some kind on utopian solution to mortality and would overall better the private (in terms of lives not business) aspects of society.

This post has been edited by Big Jimboi: 20 April 2009 - 04:35 AM

[Smallfrog]

There is a problem with total lack of prohibition. Certain substances can be very bad for soeciety. There have been cases of people killing others whilst on LSD. Had they not taken the LSD, the other person might have lived.

[Hertzy Scowicz]

I agree on your general point that it's a person's right to decide what they put in their bodies. However, I also think that they should be willing to take the consequences of their choice, for example the 'fat tax' some airlines use. If you want to be stupid, then you're the one that should suffer for your stupidity.

EDIT: Also, to smallfrog's post, I think certain kinds of intoxication should be an aggravating factor when sentencing is considered.

This post has been edited by Hertzy Scowicz: 20 April 2009 - 05:44 AM

[deSouza]

Smallfrog, on Apr 20 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

There is a problem with total lack of prohibition. Certain substances can be very bad for soeciety. There have been cases of people killing others whilst on LSD. Had they not taken the LSD, the other person might have lived.

Easy.
Restrict the usage of LSD and other drugs to the privacy of their homes and in designated places. Also, make a "high on work, fired" clause.

[Smallfrog]

deSouza, on Apr 20 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

Easy.
Restrict the usage of LSD and other drugs to the privacy of their homes and in designated places. Also, make a "high on work, fired" clause.

the case I'm thinking of (I may be able to find the details if necassary) occured in a private home.

[deSouza]

Smallfrog, on Apr 20 2009, 09:01 AM, said:

the case I'm thinking of (I may be able to find the details if necassary) occured in a private home.

People kill each other at home with kitchen knives all the time, but you dont see a law against them.

[Kolia Farvazov]

deSouza, on Apr 20 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

People kill each other at home with kitchen knives all the time, but you dont see a law against them.

Ditto. What you do to your body is your business...

Now if the people who kill themselves with knives run up and down the streets stabbing people while in the process of killing themselves... Well, that has a law against it =)

K

[deSouza]

People assume that crime is not allowed by the western judicial system.
It is "allowed".
Everything is allowed, but there are consequences to certain things.
It is what differs the rule of law from tyranny. The state cannot possibly know what happened/will happen for sure, and in order to take an "educated" decision about any event, it has to investigate and deliberate on it. And it has to happen before there is an investigation.
:lol:

[auto98]

deSouza, on Apr 20 2009, 01:17 PM, said:

People kill each other at home with kitchen knives all the time, but you dont see a law against them.

Thats because what you are saying isn't relevant to what smallfrog is saying - in smallfrogs example it is something that causes a mindset that leads to someone being killed, rather than talking about the weapon used

[Mack Truck]

People's business what they do with themselves, not the state's.

Smallfrog, on Apr 20 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

There is a problem with total lack of prohibition. Certain substances can be very bad for soeciety. There have been cases of people killing others whilst on LSD. Had they not taken the LSD, the other person might have lived.

May as well ban alcohol to stop drink-driving in that case.

[deSouza]

auto98, on Apr 20 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

Thats because what you are saying isn't relevant to what smallfrog is saying - in smallfrogs example it is something that causes a mindset that leads to someone being killed, rather than talking about the weapon used

LSD did not "cause" a mindset leading to someone being killed.
Everyone using LSD does not instantly becomes a murderer.
Your argument is fallacious, and therefore wrong.

LSD (as well as other drugs that alter someone's conscience, alcohol included) increses the likelihood of crimes being commited, yes, and as a tool of societal organization we should restrict its usage.
Restricting its usage means banning its usage?
Not really.
Even though drugs are "banned" from the perspective of the law, they are sort of allowed in terms of enforcement.
And if society was really willing to ban it, society would change laws in ways to enforce that banning.

So what do I suggest?
That we stop being so freaking selfish and think of the stoners for a second.
Why, aside from societal stigma, should they face state persecution for their personal choices?
There are other tools to restrict drug usage that do not make people's lives a living hell or make them prone to different levels of risk, according to economic condition, or that do not consist on increasing drug prices to make its usage unsustainable.

[auto98]

deSouza, on Apr 20 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

LSD did not "cause" a mindset leading to someone being killed.
Everyone using LSD does not instantly becomes a murderer.
Your argument is fallacious, and therefore wrong.

Actually, if smallfrog is talking about the same murder as i am thinking about, it did indeed cause the mindset that led to the murder. Because he was on LSD, he saw things he thought were real which led him to kill. I did not say everyone who uses it becomes a murderer, I have no idea where that statement comes from.

Besides which, I was only telling you why your post was wrong, I was not saying I was in favour of LSD being illegal.

[Lamuella]

if it were possible to have entirely informed consent (as in each person knowing everything there was to know about each substance before they took it, and accepting the risks), I'd be entirely in favor of no restrictions on substances. As it's not, really, I think there have to be some.

[Smallfrog]

auto98, on Apr 20 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

Thats because what you are saying isn't relevant to what smallfrog is saying - in smallfrogs example it is something that causes a mindset that leads to someone being killed, rather than talking about the weapon used

esepcially as the murder weapon was a bedsheet.

The thing we are talking about is a drug that can drive people to extreme's of insanity, making it unsafe for them to be in society (being drunk and incapable is an arrestable offence for a similar reason.)

Quote

R v Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152.

The defendant, having voluntarily consumed LSD, had the illusion of descending to the centre of the earth and being attacked by snakes. In his attempt to fight off these reptiles he struck the victim (also a drug addict on an LSD "trip") two blows on the head causing injuries to her brain and crammed some eight inches of bedsheet into her mouth causing her to die of asphyxia. He claimed to have had no knowledge of what he was doing and no intention to harm her. His defence of intoxication was rejected at his trial and he was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter.

[edikroma]

I think you should be allowed to choose what you put into your bodies, as long as it is:
1) In the privacy of your home (or in a private establishment)
2) Not putting anyone else in danger.

And people should be willing to accept the social consequences of what they put into their bodies. For example, "fat taxes" or increased cost of health insurance. If they get caught doing drugs in a public place, or while they are driving, the punishment should be severe.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Smallfrog, on Apr 20 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

There is a problem with total lack of prohibition. Certain substances can be very bad for soeciety. There have been cases of people killing others whilst on LSD. Had they not taken the LSD, the other person might have lived.

Then just legalize it in special areas created specifically for LSD usage. No need to completely make all forms of LSD illegal. Regulation is better than both Prohibition and No Regulation whatsoever.

It should also be legal in your own home so long as there are no minors there.

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 20 April 2009 - 02:40 PM

[deja]

Universal healthcare changes my stance on this.

Your right to do whatever you want to your body ends when I have to pay for it.

[HHAYD]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Apr 20 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

Then just legalize it in special areas created specifically for LSD usage. No need to completely make all forms of LSD illegal. Regulation is better than both Prohibition and No Regulation whatsoever.

It should also be legal in your own home so long as there are no minors there.

And you should post a sign warning people to not enter your house while you are using drugs.

[deSouza]

It doesnt works like that.
Every drug user can "contribute" for the drug support healthcare system.

[Arkantos]

Solution:

1) Allow drugs, or anything they want to do, to be used in private homes, but not apartments.
2) Allow these things to be used in private establishments, but those establishments must post signs warning of the use of drugs there.