• 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!

Public Polocies Part 1

Please chose the political directions you prefer

  • Drug Prohibition: Legalize, tax and use harm reduction approach

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Drug Prohibition: Legalize and tax only certain drugs

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Drug Prohibition: Become more aggressive in the war on drugs

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Abortion: Women’s choice, w/ women’s responsibility

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Abortion: Women’s choice w/ men and women’s responsibility

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Abortion: Pro-Life, except in severe situations

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Abortion: Pro-Life, no exceptions

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Social Supports: Make transitioning to independent living graduall

    Votes: 7 50.0%
  • Social Supports: Keep current cut-offs

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Social Supports: Donations only

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have compiled some of the major political issues and asked related questions for voting purposes. If you aren't sure what I mean, please comment. Enjoy!
 
Drugs: I think we should legalize and tax a lot of drugs. Not all of them though. I think legalizing some drugs will cause more problems than it will solve, and they should stay illegal. Essentially anything that isn't addictive is probably fine to legalize, and things like Marijuana, Psilocybin, Peyote, LSD, etc. should be legal. Things like Heroin or Methamphetamine which cause severe physical dependence should remain illegal.

Abortion: Elective abortion legal to 20 weeks gestation. Abortion legal after that only if the mother's health/life is seriously threatened or if the fetus isn't viable. Men should have 4 weeks from the time that they find out they got someone pregnant in which they can legally give up all rights and responsibilities to the child without requiring consent from the mother.

Social support: Social security needs serious help. Retirement age needs to be increased considerably and the cap on contributions needs to be repealed. Welfare and Unemployment should be more about helping to make people independent again than simply handing them money.
 
Drugs: Prohibition causes more crime then it prevents. Legalize all drugs and use harm reduction. Treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.

Abortion: Keep the government out of it.

Social Support: Faze it out slowly and offer opt out plans for the younger generation who won't have access to it.
 
Drugs: Prohibition causes more crime then it prevents. Legalize all drugs and use harm reduction. Treat drug addiction as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.

Abortion: Keep the government out of it.

Social Support: Faze it out slowly and offer opt out plans for the younger generation who won't have access to it.

What do you mean by "opt out plans"?
 
Drugs: I think we should legalize and tax a lot of drugs. Not all of them though. I think legalizing some drugs will cause more problems than it will solve, and they should stay illegal. Essentially anything that isn't addictive is probably fine to legalize, and things like Marijuana, Psilocybin, Peyote, LSD, etc. should be legal. Things like Heroin or Methamphetamine which cause severe physical dependence should remain illegal.

I disagree - those drugs will be used anyway - its better to make it more safe and treat their problems as medical and psychologically based

Abortion: Elective abortion legal to 20 weeks gestation. Abortion legal after that only if the mother's health/life is seriously threatened or if the fetus isn't viable. Men should have 4 weeks from the time that they find out they got someone pregnant in which they can legally give up all rights and responsibilities to the child without requiring consent from the mother.

This is essentially in line with my views

Social support: Social security needs serious help. Retirement age needs to be increased considerably and the cap on contributions needs to be repealed. Welfare and Unemployment should be more about helping to make people independent again than simply handing them money.

I agree, especially with making welfare about getting people back on their feet, not stuck in the system. One way of doing this would be to get rid of cut-offs and make it so that as the poor make more money, benefits aren't cut off to the point that they can't afford their bills anymore. Instead, benefits would gradually disappear as the individual or family made more money. An additional reward, such as a tax credit if they receive a raise during one year, would give them extra incentive to move up. The only problem being that if everyone were to move out of poverty, who would be left to do the wealthy's bidding?
 
I disagree - those drugs will be used anyway - its better to make it more safe and treat their problems as medical and psychologically based

The question is whether more people would use them if they were made legal. I suspect they would. Those are not drugs we want to encourage people to use.
 
The question is whether more people would use them if they were made legal. I suspect they would. Those are not drugs we want to encourage people to use.

Ok then do you say we should keep them on a criminal scale because I believe if we treated addicts as sick people rather than criminals then a lot of perception would change.


What do you mean by "opt out plans"?

A person can choose to opt out of social security in favor of a private savings.
 
Drugs: Freedom of choice and self-ownership are paramount. Drug-use is a victimless action, therefore there is no justification for criminalizing the sale or possession of drugs. People are responsible for the harm they self-inflict; they are also responsible for any crimes they commit under the influence. Laws around the margins, such as "you may not sell to minors," or "you may not operate a vehicle while under the influence") are permissible, and even desirable. I do not believe in pigovian taxes on these drugs, either; if there is a sales tax, then apply it universally. The tax code should not moralize. THAT SAID, whatever the method of taxation the government in question employs, it makes more sense to get drugs off the black market both so that there is no ancillary crime generated from the manufacturing or sale and that taxes would apply normally.


Abortion, unlike drug use, is not a matter for freedom of choice, nor is it victimless. I would not say "no exceptions," but the exceptions that are permissible are exceedingly rare. It is permissible, for example, as an emergency triage action in which the kid is going to die regardless of action, but the mother will die without intervention; a physician has an obligation to both patients, but at that point the ethical action becomes to save who you can.


Social support: Charity is not the role of the state. Eliminate every last vestige of the welfare state.
 
Last edited:
Drugs- Remove the DEA and federal involvement in drugs, focus all former-DEA federal resources to watching imports to keep drugs from being exported to US. Leave all drug laws up to the states. If Louisiana wants 20 years in prison for a joint and Colorado let's you carry ounces around on your person and smoke wherever, I guess you'd know where the fun state is. Intoxication laws and addiction services are up to the state per its own policies. Might require minimal federal standards for interstate highways and other national transportation system and related issues of drug use and occupations, granted.

Abortion; as a medical procedure, there should be no federal government involvement, let states regulate the late-term abortion issues if they want. Women bodies, women's choices. Abortions should be covered by insurance companies, but there is no way to force an insurance company to pay for certain medical procedures, including abortions.

Social Support; minimal federal involvement, mostly focusing on soldiers and other federally employed people to keep federal fiduciary responsibilities low. Let states set up their own welfare systems and fund them itself through government revenue and adjust itself to the needs of the state and the will of it's people.
 
Last edited:
The question is whether more people would use them if they were made legal. I suspect they would. Those are not drugs we want to encourage people to use.

I don't think allowing clinically supervised use of those "hard" drugs would be very encouraging.

I tend to think that, because people now how damaging those drugs can be, those drugs would be the least likely to show an increase in use. jmo
 
Ok then do you say we should keep them on a criminal scale because I believe if we treated addicts as sick people rather than criminals then a lot of perception would change.

Probably not for a first offense. Users should probably be punished relatively lightly at first, with the focus for a first offense on treatment rather than punishment, scaling more towards the punishment side of things with subsequent offenses. If the government pays for someone to go to rehab, and a month later they're arrested for use of the same drug again, chances are more treatment won't be effective, and would simply be a waste of money.

And I only sort of agree with the idea that addicts should be treated as sick people. Most people don't choose to get sick. If someone chooses to use a drug that causes physical dependence, they choose to get addicted. It isn't an optional thing.
 
I don't think allowing clinically supervised use of those "hard" drugs would be very encouraging.

I tend to think that, because people now how damaging those drugs can be, those drugs would be the least likely to show an increase in use. jmo

You could be right. As far as I know there aren't any countries that allow recreational use of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, so there's no data on whether legalization increases or decreases use.
 
Probably not for a first offense. Users should probably be punished relatively lightly at first, with the focus for a first offense on treatment rather than punishment, scaling more towards the punishment side of things with subsequent offenses. If the government pays for someone to go to rehab, and a month later they're arrested for use of the same drug again, chances are more treatment won't be effective, and would simply be a waste of money.

And I only sort of agree with the idea that addicts should be treated as sick people. Most people don't choose to get sick. If someone chooses to use a drug that causes physical dependence, they choose to get addicted. It isn't an optional thing.

Unfortunately, the psychological research regarding those assumptions do not support your argument. When thinking about psychology, we must remember that there is such a thing as cause and effect. Gene's are put together a certain way and certain tendencies emerge. The individual then applies those tendencies in life, thus interacting with his/her environment and eventually an individual with a unique psychological profile is formed. Therefore, if a person is born into poverty and/or is genetically at risk for mental health problems, it is likely that they will end up using drugs. Substance abuse is highly correlated with mental health disorders. This means that most problematic substance use cases are the result of individuals trying to treat a mental health disorder with drugs. It also means that some people use drugs just for the experience, but end up addicted and develop mental health disorders as a result. Cold punishments will only increase mental health problems, while a caring treatment approach leads to mental health. Unfortunately, that's just the way it works.
 
You could be right. As far as I know there aren't any countries that allow recreational use of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, so there's no data on whether legalization increases or decreases use.


This is true, as far as recreational use is concerned. But we do know that crime rates decrease when drug replacement therapy treatment facilities (e.g. methadone clinics) move into communities. This is more what I mean by the harm reduction approach, availability of the substances, but with the stated purpose of treatment - what people use it for from there is up to them.
 
Unfortunately, the psychological research regarding those assumptions do not support your argument. When thinking about psychology, we must remember that there is such a thing as cause and effect. Gene's are put together a certain way and certain tendencies emerge. The individual then applies those tendencies in life, thus interacting with his/her environment and eventually an individual with a unique psychological profile is formed. Therefore, if a person is born into poverty and/or is genetically at risk for mental health problems, it is likely that they will end up using drugs. Substance abuse is highly correlated with mental health disorders. This means that most problematic substance use cases are the result of individuals trying to treat a mental health disorder with drugs. It also means that some people use drugs just for the experience, but end up addicted and develop mental health disorders as a result. Cold punishments will only increase mental health problems, while a caring treatment approach leads to mental health. Unfortunately, that's just the way it works.

Being genetically predisposed (or predisposed because of upbringing) does not mean someone doesn't have a choice about whether or not to do something. I'm overweight. I'm genetically predisposed to it, and predisposed to it from my upbringing, but I still make the choice to eat too much and exercise too little, and I could choose to do otherwise if I wished (in fact at the moment I am, we'll see if it lasts). Drug use is the same way. Some people might be predisposed to it, but unless they given the drug without their consent (which I'm fairly sure is extremely rare) they still make the choice to do it.
 
This is true, as far as recreational use is concerned. But we do know that crime rates decrease when drug replacement therapy treatment facilities (e.g. methadone clinics) move into communities. This is more what I mean by the harm reduction approach, availability of the substances, but with the stated purpose of treatment - what people use it for from there is up to them.

My problem with this is that the government is essentially giving people recreational drugs at that point, and I don't support my tax dollars going to that. I'd be fine with putting people in rehab and giving them drugs to wean them off as part of rehab, since I realize that some drugs can't be safely quit cold turkey, but I'm not okay with saying "here's some free heroin, do what you want with it" but they shouldn't just be handed out free with no requirement for other treatment. It may depend heavily on the clinic, but I've got a cousin that's been "quitting" heroin with the assistance of a methadone clinic for 20 years.
 
My problem with this is that the government is essentially giving people recreational drugs at that point, and I don't support my tax dollars going to that. I'd be fine with putting people in rehab and giving them drugs to wean them off as part of rehab, since I realize that some drugs can't be safely quit cold turkey, but I'm not okay with saying "here's some free heroin, do what you want with it" but they shouldn't just be handed out free with no requirement for other treatment. It may depend heavily on the clinic, but I've got a cousin that's been "quitting" heroin with the assistance of a methadone clinic for 20 years.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that if a person isn't already addicted, they should be able to acquire the drugs legally via purchase through licensed venders, where a mental health assessment is preformed prior to use. The clinical part comes in if they are trying to get off of or reduce their use of a substance. Many addicts' brain chemistry actually changes, making it extremely difficult for them to come off highly addictive drugs. Many addicts have mental health problems, the symptoms of which are often actually treated by the drug they are addicted to. If other medications or therapies do not relieve the symptoms, it would be very hard for them to quit the drug. We would actually save money as we wouldn't have to pay for the war on drugs and to pay for keeping people in prison. The only cost would be that of producing and providing the drugs, with some additional mental health related fees. Crime would also be reduced due to the reduced cost of the drugs. Thus money would be saved in law enforcement and in the courts as well. The benefits go on and on. Don't forget, the economy would be boosted as a result of sales and an increase in tax revenue. This is certainly not an ideal solution, but it seems like it is the greater of two "evils", so to speak.
 
Back
Top Bottom