• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

  • Everything should be permitted that doesn't "harm others"

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • We should have some societal standards based on morals

    Votes: 8 19.5%

  • We should have more standards than what we have now

    Votes: 4 9.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 12.2%
  • Total voters
    41
Illegal drug use is harmful to others.
So is legal drug use not equally harmful? I would contend that it's the illegality that's the problem, not the drug use itself. Certainly, if you don't use drugs wisely you might cause harm to someone else but that's true of many things and it seems incorrect to chose this one category. Should tobacco be illegal? Should alcohol be illegal? Should Oxicontin be illegal?

Prostitution is harmful to others
So, if I don't pay the girl, does that make it OK? Or is it really only a problem when, say, the girl is enslaved, in which case it is harmful and I believe a serious crime.

Addiction to substances is harmful to others
I think this is the same as point one.

This is only a discussion and no disrespect is intended. Obviously, my opinion is diametrically opposite of yours.
 
digsbe said:
I think what others tend to neglect too is the impact it would also have on legal drugs (prescription drugs). If people are legally entitled to do whatever they want to their own bodies then what should stop anyone from obtaining any legal medications? What should keep someone from having to get a prescription for blood sugar/blood pressure/thyroid medications? We have the current medical model and prescriptive checks and balances because it would be a travesty to public health to allow individuals to self diagnose and self treat or to say that they are self entitled to every medication at their elective choice. The ethical and legal implications of legalizing illegal substances and the ethical belief that you can do whatever you want to yourself has many more implications than just legalizing very harmful illegal drugs.
Click to expand...

On the other hand I am.asthmatic. treated just fine with the old OTC inhalers. $20 a pop, lasted about a month each.

Now I have to use prescription meds, as the OTCs were discontinued due to CFC propellents.

$60 for a clinic visit, $45 per inhaler, last 2-3 weeks.

I've had asthma all my life. I am quite familiar with my condition. I fail to see why I have to pay someone to tell me I have asthma and allow me to have medication for it. A check from time to time on general principles or when something changes mayne, but every single time for 40 years now?

And consider this: one of pots side effects is relaxation of smooth walled muscles, reducing blood pressure and other effects of stress. How much money does your pharmacy make off of drugs for high blood pressure, acid reflux and other stress related illnesses? How many of those drugs have serious side effects?

How much disinformation would you pay for to protect those profits? (If it was you and you weren't the decent person you clearly are?)
 
I am not magically enlightened. I do not posses some all knowing sense of right and wrong that extends much beyond what I personally like or dislike. This makes me quite normal. I know for certain that I do not have the moral authority to decide right and wrong for anyone else. But, objectively, no one really likes to be harmed. Harming others is something we can universally decide is immoral. Anything else is subjective. And we have no right to force our subjective tastes on others. That, after all, causes a lot of harm.
 
I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure how this approach might work in a country like the US, but I suspect people would find the following highly relevant. Some excerpts:

"In 2001 Portugal became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines. [NB from Ian: the drugs are still 'illegal', but are essentially decriminalised]

...

Critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to “drug tourists” and exacerbate Portugal’s drug problem; the country has some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. The recently realised results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, suggest otherwise. The paper, published by Cato in April 2011, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

...

Following decriminalization, Portugal has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the EU: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%, Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%. Drug use in older teens also declined. Life time heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%.

New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003.

Death related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.

The number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and the considerable money saved on enforcement allowed for increase funding of drug – free treatment as well.

Property theft has dropped dramatically (50% - 80% of all property theft worldwide is caused by drug users)."
 
iangb said:
I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure how this approach might work in a country like the US, but I suspect people would find the following highly relevant. Some excerpts:

"In 2001 Portugal became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines. [NB from Ian: the drugs are still 'illegal', but are essentially decriminalised]

...

Critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to “drug tourists” and exacerbate Portugal’s drug problem; the country has some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. The recently realised results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, suggest otherwise. The paper, published by Cato in April 2011, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

...

Following decriminalization, Portugal has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the EU: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%, Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%. Drug use in older teens also declined. Life time heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%.

New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003.

Death related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half.

The number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and the considerable money saved on enforcement allowed for increase funding of drug – free treatment as well.

Property theft has dropped dramatically (50% - 80% of all property theft worldwide is caused by drug users)."
Click to expand...

if we legalize marijuana,use will definatly go down,alot of people like to use it just because its illegal.dont worry though when we legalize it hippies will find a new way to protest "THE MAN"
 
With regards to the actual OP: I voted for 'other'.

In my opinion, laws should be enacted which maximise the quality of life of the population as a whole, while ensuring a reasonable minimum standard for quality of life of each individual in the population. Several 'moral stances' match up with that guideline (eg "killing people is bad!") and several don't (eg "sodomy between consenting adults is an abomination!"). However, whether a stance is 'moral' or not shouldn't really be considered when looking at laws, except as useful background information - both because the populace's opinion of a law may well affect how easy it is to enforce, and because memetics indicates that many morals are in the general consciousness because they lead to a strong society.

Of course, that's not a precise science by any means - for example, as the above link demonstrates, it may be worth decriminalising something negative on the basis that it will actually help more people overall. That's why an empirical approach to lawmaking is vital, rather than a moralistic one.

An interesting topic, though - thanks for bringing up the issue! I've been thinking about it for quite a while (it ties in with other long-running thoughts of mine on the purposes of punishing criminals) but have never actually written much on the topic - certainly for a good few years now (I wrote one or two good things in pro/anti-gun forums elsewhere, several years back... might have to dig 'em up and see if I still agree with them!). What I've written here isn't exact, either, but it's a step in the right direction :)
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?
Click to expand...

Your poll question is faulty.All laws are based on morals.If something is illegal it is because enough people thought it is wrong and therefore should be against the law.

Moral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :
 
digsbe said:
Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"? If something doesn't "harm others" should it be legal and permitted? Should we have societal standards? Should we have some legal morals? Do people have a right to do all things they wish so long as others aren't harmed?
Click to expand...

Generally yes. Otherwise, we would be bordering on theocracy. Societal standards to seem to change with time, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but I think the only way to preserve any semblence of liberty is to keep a live and let live approach.
 
digsbe said:
And you are right, we do have the right to abuse lots of things, and I think it's bad enough already (personally I think alcoholics should be criminally charged and alcohol regulated more). Just because we don't ban all harmful things doesn't mean we should legalize more.
Click to expand...

This is my own thoughts about the matter: I don't care who abuses what, and if an abuser kills himself with his habit, then that problem has been self-limiting. One of the problems that we have, as a society, is that we want to save people from themselves. I have no problem with letting people get themselves out of their own messes.
 
Why exactly should drugs be illegal? Don't talk to me about cartels or theft or whatever - those are not related to the ACT of doing drugs. The act of doing drugs harms no one, except sometimes the individual doing them (and sometimes not - depends on the user, depends on the drug). If someone has gone beyond dabbling and has become an addict, how does that make them a criminal? They're sick. When did sickness become a crime? And the really ironic part is that there's a good chance that they were sick even before the drugs, and wound up an addict because society's resources failed to help them. We essentially incarcerate people for what is not only a victimless crime, but a problem that resulted from our failure to help them in the first place.

What form of sex between consenting adults should be illegal? And why? Because it weirds you out? You're not in their bedroom. What business is it of yours?

Who has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and lives? Since when does the state own your body?

MaggieD said:
Individual drug use fuels drug cartels.
Illegal prostitution attracts crime to neighborhoods and lowers property values. Plus, of course, all prostitution is not voluntary. Ask Leroy about his "commissions."

And why on earth would you exclude "theft"???
Click to expand...

Those are harms caused by prohibition, not by the actions themselves. Don't forget, there used to be violent cartels selling alcohol during Prohibition too. This is NOT a drug problem. It's a prohibition problem. The actions themselves are things that people will do no matter what, and other cultures have proven that the harms they cause can be drastically reduced or eliminated entirely through proper regulation. They may still harm to the individual doing them, but that is the individual's choice.

In the case of involuntary prostitution, again, prostitution ITSELF is not the problem. The problem is that they are not consenting to what is being done to their own bodies. You're absolutely right, illegal prostitution attracts crime. But guess what? Legal prostitution doesn't, or is at least far less likely to.
 
Last edited:
It depends on how you define harm. I think there qre things that may not directly physically harm people, but may indirectly harm people or society. If everyone acted responsibly, there probably wouldn't be an issue and we wouldn't need to have the discussion, but far too many people don't.
 
lizzie said:
This is my own thoughts about the matter: I don't care who abuses what, and if an abuser kills himself with his habit, then that problem has been self-limiting. One of the problems that we have, as a society, is that we want to save people from themselves. I have no problem with letting people get themselves out of their own messes.
Click to expand...

Not only that we want to save them, but they expect society to pay the way of those who do self-destructive things. I don't care if you want to shoot up battery acid, so long as nobody has to pay your way, not your medical costs, not your living expenses, nothing whatsoever when you render yourself dead or crippled. You do it to yourself, you suffer the consequences 100% on your own. Until we can do that, it's absolutely my place to say what you do, it's my tax money funding your lifestyle.
 
MaggieD said:
Illegal drug use is harmful to others. Prostitution is harmful to others. Addiction to substances is harmful to others. I thought you probably meant those kinds of so-called victimless crimes. They are not victimless.
Click to expand...

I watched an episode of cops the other night that made me shake my head. About a dozen cops and a female cop posing as a prostitute wasted an entire day busting lonely pathetic harmless old men that wanted a 20 buck BJ. Serious waste of man power and tax payer money if you ask me.
 
digsbe said:
... But legalizing illegal drugs is very harmful and would not benefit American society. People don't have a right to abuse substances nor do they have a right to self treat with legal prescriptive drugs.
Click to expand...
I posted in another thread about self-medicating illegally, not me but someone close. Doctors, several of them misdiagnosed this person and prescribed one drug after another. All were inappropriate or exacerbating his condition. This person obtained illegal medications from overseas; they worked better than anything prescribed. It was for years that doctors finally figured out, because of a cat scan that led to other analyses etc., that he got the proper drugs, i.e. newer versions of what he was getting illegally from India.
 
Cephus said:
Not only that we want to save them, but they expect society to pay the way of those who do self-destructive things. I don't care if you want to shoot up battery acid, so long as nobody has to pay your way, not your medical costs, not your living expenses, nothing whatsoever when you render yourself dead or crippled. You do it to yourself, you suffer the consequences 100% on your own. Until we can do that, it's absolutely my place to say what you do, it's my tax money funding your lifestyle.
Click to expand...
That applies to texting while driving right?
 
What if...? said:
Actually drug abuse tends to self correct. Most of the drugs used today have been used in some form for a great many years, yet we managed to build a technological civilization.

A generation burned down on crack. This form is far more addictive than its snorted counterpart and much cheaper than "fre-basing. So it took them by surprise. The next generation, having seen the wreckage is forewarned.

When I first started getting high, one of my friends' mom was THE white heroin dealer in San Diego. Expoaure to junkies took heroin off our lists of things to try.

Far too many of our problems with drugs derive from their illegality. People hide their use, which makes it harder for friends and family to intervene.

Further, an obscene amount of deliberate misinformation is distributed through official channels as to the risks and consequences involved. They tell kids pot is just as dangerous as crack, kid tries pot, discovers it isn't anywhere near as bad a s they were told, and then tries crack or meth assuming they were.lied to about that as well and BANG! Big problem.

In other words, much of what we consider "dangers" of drug use are DIRECTLY atteibutable to their illegality and not their actual inherent hazards. (Which there are, don't get me wrong. But they would be manageable hazards if we took a more enlightened approach to the subject. What we do now is akin to absinence only sex ed in schools. It simply does not work and is actuall counterproductive)
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you say here.


lizzie said:
This is my own thoughts about the matter: I don't care who abuses what, and if an abuser kills himself with his habit, then that problem has been self-limiting. One of the problems that we have, as a society, is that we want to save people from themselves. I have no problem with letting people get themselves out of their own messes.
Click to expand...
This is what I call the short-sightedness of the so-called "victimless crime" mindset. What you describe is only the immediate situation. The consequences and ramifications can, and often do, reverberate far beyond the lone individual. Spouses, kids, and so on are often affected, negatively, by the individual's demise. One could argue that they weren't doing much anyway, but that's not necessarily true.

Now, I'm closer to your point of view than you probably think reading thus far, but I stop at, and reject, the "victimless crime" designation. No, there are almost always victims... just not necessarily direct victims.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the "victimless crime" phrase specifically in your post, but it is a common preferred phrase for this POV.)


sawyerloggingon said:
I watched an episode of cops the other night that made me shake my head. About a dozen cops and a female cop posing as a prostitute wasted an entire day busting lonely pathetic harmless old men that wanted a 20 buck BJ. Serious waste of man power and tax payer money if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of going to far to the extreme in the other direction.
 
Honestly i think legalizing prostitution would help the women who do that, because it would allow the government to put down rules and regulations to protect them and they could sue their pimps.

Drug use on the other hand is a different matter. Saying I don't care what you inject into your body sounds nice but in reality it probably wouldn't end well if everyone was allowed to easily get what are now illegal drugs. My guess is that it would cause serious societal problems and drugs such as heroine and coke would be made illegal again.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
That applies to texting while driving right?
Click to expand...

I'd say that texting while driving is inherently dangerous, not only to you but to those driving around you and should be criminalized. The same ought to go for anything else that people do that distracts them while driving. If you want to do it on an empty stretch of road, where no people, animals or property can possibly be damaged but your own, feel free. Just don't expect them to send out an ambulance at taxpayer expense to clean up the mess.
 
partier9 said:
Honestly i think legalizing prostitution would help the women who do that, because it would allow the government to put down rules and regulations to protect them and they could sue their pimps.
Click to expand...

While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.

Drug use on the other hand is a different matter. Saying I don't care what you inject into your body sounds nice but in reality it probably wouldn't end well if everyone was allowed to easily get what are now illegal drugs. My guess is that it would cause serious societal problems and drugs such as heroine and coke would be made illegal again.
Click to expand...

Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.
 
Goshin said:
However, I don't see legalizing crack or meth... too toxic and dangerous. Cocaine, possibly. Heroin, probably not.
Click to expand...

So what? It's none of your goddamn business if someone else wants to **** their body up. People can drink themselves into oblivion. Why, then, shouldn't we ban alcohol? People can binge eat themselves into obesity and heart disease. Should we ban doughnuts? Mandate daily exercise? 5 servings of vegetables a day or its a misdemeanor. The government has no business forcing people to lead healthy lives.

If someone wants to do heroin, who are you to tell them they cannot? That's bull****. That completely flies in the face of personal freedom.
 
MaggieD said:
Illegal drug use is harmful to others. Prostitution is harmful to others. Addiction to substances is harmful to others. I thought you probably meant those kinds of so-called victimless crimes. They are not victimless.
Click to expand...

who's the victim if i do a line of coke or three before i go out partying some nights?
 
the_recruit said:
So what? It's none of your goddamn business if someone else wants to **** their body up. People can drink themselves into oblivion. Why, then, shouldn't we ban alcohol? People can binge eat themselves into obesity and heart disease. Should we ban doughnuts? Mandate daily exercise? 5 servings of vegetables a day or its a misdemeanor. The government has no business forcing people to lead healthy lives.

If someone wants to do heroin, who are you to tell them they cannot? That's bull****. That completely flies in the face of personal freedom.
Click to expand...

Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom