illegalize drugs
vote for my suggestion to illegalize any substance that does more harm to the body than good
_Myopia_
23-09-2005, 22:22
It's best to post your proposal text on the forum.
Illeiglize all drugs
A resolution to ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs.
Category: Recreational Drug Use
Decision: Outlaw
Proposed by: JAMSHT
Description: any substance or "drug" that may cause more damage than help to the body is hereby illegal and must be destroyed or given to the government for them to destroy.
Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 128 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Mon Sep 26 2005
This is a terribly nebulous criterion. How are we to weigh up, for instance, benefits to state of mind against damage to the lungs? There is no standardised way of quantifying benefits and harms to the body, and thus it is impossible to make an objective or universal judgement about what does more harm than good. I could invent a drug which improves your mental health and ability and also gives you a temporary high, whilst permanently destroying your ability to walk - but if I feel that the mind is all-important and that the gains to my mind are worth living in a wheelchair, I could easily argue that the drug does more good than harm.
More generally, what gives any state the right to determine what goes into citizens' bodies? Unless we are to say that the state should actually claim partial ownership of citizens' bodies, surely it is their business and their business only what goes into their bodies?
Compadria
23-09-2005, 22:30
The real question, when debating the risks and dangers of a drug should be:
a). Health risks to the individual: Defined as adverse health affects resulting from use of the drug.
b). Dangers to society: Whether the individuals use of the drug is outweighed by the cost to his health and hence to the society he lives in.
To evaluate this, a panel of scientists could be appointed by each nation, to weigh up the merits and demerits of a drug and pass judgment, following an official report.
May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Gruenberg
23-09-2005, 22:45
Given that drug use in one nation does not affect another nation, why is it the UN's place to deal with this in any case? You have not clearly set out, to my mind, why there should be such meddling.
Your definition, incidentally, is hopeless. We have asked our delegate not to approve this.
_Myopia_
24-09-2005, 00:11
a). Health risks to the individual: Defined as adverse health affects resulting from use of the drug.
Why should this necessarily be an important factor? If the consumer is informed of all the dangers, how can you justify denying adults the right to make decisions for themselves about their bodies?
This is an utopian law. how on earth are u going to get it done. So many people are addicted to drugs (ex. cigarrettes) that rehab centers will overflow
The Most Glorious Hack
24-09-2005, 03:05
Deleted for being terminally vague.
Compadria
24-09-2005, 14:14
Why should this necessarily be an important factor? If the consumer is informed of all the dangers, how can you justify denying adults the right to make decisions for themselves about their bodies?
I didn't specify that this was the only reason for banning a substance, nor that dangerous subtances would necessarily be banned. I meant to say that in some cases, the dangers of the drug to public health outweigh the demands of individual choice and thus, after scientific scutiny, must be prohibited.
May the blessings of our otters be upon you.
Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
_Myopia_
24-09-2005, 16:42
I didn't think you meant it should be the only reason. All I was asking was, why should damage to the individual who knowingly chooses this damage be a factor at all? If you tax the sale sufficiently, users can pay their own way in terms of health provision.
illegalize drugs?!?!? Has anybody considered the knock on effects to the film industry? Just what are the baddies and the plots going to revolve around in most of the cop movies if drugs are legal? A 2hr movie about tracking down a serial parking offender just won't be quite the replacement!
:sniper: :mp5: i see nothing in legalizing drugs but it sounds like a good idea