• 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!

Mexico Decriminalizes All Drugs!

Do you want the United States to decriminalize all drugs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 24 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 12.5%
  • Total voters
    48
Ikari said:
Maybe there are some drugs we can keep illegal, like designer drugs and such. But for the most part, drugs should be decriminalized. Rather the drug trade be controlled by Wall Street than foreign drug lords and the government.
Click to expand...
Which is the least of these three "evils" ?
Our government, IMO, and to keep it relatively free of evil, we need better people participating in the process.
 
Cephus said:
Just because you desire something doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

:doh

What does this sentence even mean?

I'm sure there are plenty of people in prison who desire to live free, doesn't mean they get to.
Click to expand...

So? It doesn't change the fact that they all possess an innate desire to live free.

There's a difference between the biological desire for self-survival and having a "right" to survive.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't, because that's really what "rights" are; a self-evident desire to live free that all humans possess. Rights aren't supposed to be viewed like a magic force field. Rights are a CONCEPT that holds true throughout all of humanity, with or without societies and laws. We all desire to live free and will resist any attempts to abrogate that desire. That's why a right can exist without society's permission. Here, Thomas Jefferson will explain:

"The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights."

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Click to expand...

If you're out in the middle of the African bush and get attacked by lions, I don't think they're going to give a damn about your "right to life".
Click to expand...

Well duh! Just because our rights can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist as a matter of rational self-evidence.

Either way, the Constitution, if read properly, would protect such a right as a I espouse. The government is not given the authority to prohibit drug use so that means they aren’t allowed to do it.
 
Ethereal said:
What does this sentence even mean?
Click to expand...

It's sad that I have to explain the difference between wishful thinking and reality to you. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who wish they could fly like Superman, but the reality is, they can't. It's a mature and rational mind that learns to accept it's limitations. Give it a shot.

Well duh! Just because our rights can be violated doesn't mean they don't exist as a matter of rational self-evidence.
Click to expand...

That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've read in a long time. For one thing, self-evidence is a contradictory term. There is evidence, that which we can present to others and exists objectively. Then there is wishful thinking, that which an individual wants to think is true, even if they cannot defend it rationally, critically or logically. You seem to be painfully full of the latter.

Either way, the Constitution, if read properly, would protect such a right as a I espouse. The government is not given the authority to prohibit drug use so that means they aren’t allowed to do it.
Click to expand...

Sure... read properly. Translate that as the way *YOU* want it read. Geez, no wonder people think libertarians are so nuts. News flash for you, Cinderella, the government is made up *OF THE PEOPLE*. The government can do whatever the people want. In fact, if enough people want it, they can amend the constitution and revoke any of your cherished rights they feel like and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

Time to wake up and smell the roses. Reality guffaws at your wishful thinking.
 
Cephus said:
That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've read in a long time. For one thing, self-evidence is a contradictory term. There is evidence, that which we can present to others and exists objectively. Then there is wishful thinking, that which an individual wants to think is true, even if they cannot defend it rationally, critically or logically. You seem to be painfully full of the latter.
Click to expand...

If a right is a social construct, then all he would need to do is evidence society agreeing that such a right exist. Rights formed by society exist even when the random token exception chooses to disagree.

The person who denies the right needs to understand that the right exists non the less within that society, despite their singular objection. That person needs to go outside of that society to be free from that right.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
It's sad that I have to explain the difference between wishful thinking and reality to you. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who wish they could fly like Superman, but the reality is, they can't. It's a mature and rational mind that learns to accept it's limitations. Give it a shot.
Click to expand...

Wanting to fly like Superman is not analogous to wanting to live free, as the former is fantasy whereas the latter is indisputable biological fact. Minor distinction, I know, but important nonetheless.

For one thing, self-evidence is a contradictory term.
Click to expand...

Yea, Thomas Jefferson is such a moron. He should have known better than to insert a contradictory term into our Declaration of Independence.

If only YOU were there to stop him from doing something so foolish!

Cephus or Thomas Jefferson? Who should we listen to?

:lol:

There is evidence, that which we can present to others and exists objectively. Then there is wishful thinking, that which an individual wants to think is true, even if they cannot defend it rationally, critically or logically. You seem to be painfully full of the latter.
Click to expand...

The human desire to live free IS an objective fact; always has been, I'm afraid.

Sure... read properly. Translate that as the way *YOU* want it read.
Click to expand...

No. I just read the words and apply them accordingly; if there is any ambiguity in the letter of the law then we can look to the spirit of the law by referencing the Founders. It has nothing to do with what *I* want, really.

If you think I'm wrong then, by all means, make some kind of argument instead of going off on silly tangents.

Here, use this to make your argument:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution]United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Geez, no wonder people think libertarians are so nuts. News flash for you, Cinderella, the government is made up *OF THE PEOPLE*. The government can do whatever the people want. In fact, if enough people want it, they can amend the constitution and revoke any of your cherished rights they feel like and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, rights can be violated. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

A "right" is simply defined as an act with a moral basis. The moral basis being the innate desire of all humans to live free and unmolested. You can argue that "rights" are not tangible force-fields which protect us from violence but you would be creating a strawman because natural rights are just a moral sentiment we derive from a biological phenomenon, i.e., the innate desire of humans to live free.

If you do not recognize the morality of natural rights you're free to live in the jungle with the rest of the animals.

Time to wake up and smell the roses. Reality guffaws at your wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Wake up and smell the roses? I guffaw at your misuse of a classic saying...:lol:
 
Ethereal said:
Wanting to fly like Superman is not analogous to wanting to live free, as the former is fantasy whereas the latter is indisputable biological fact. Minor distinction, I know, but important nonetheless.



Yea, Thomas Jefferson is such a moron. He should have known better than to insert a contradictory term into our Declaration of Independence.

If only YOU were there to stop him from doing something so foolish!

Cephus or Thomas Jefferson? Who should we listen to?

:lol:



The human desire to live free IS an objective fact; always has been, I'm afraid.



No. I just read the words and apply them accordingly; if there is any ambiguity in the letter of the law then we can look to the spirit of the law by referencing the Founders. It has nothing to do with what *I* want, really.

If you think I'm wrong then, by all means, make some kind of argument instead of going off on silly tangents.

Here, use this to make your argument:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yes, rights can be violated. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

A "right" is simply defined as an act with a moral basis. The moral basis being the innate desire of all humans to live free and unmolested. You can argue that "rights" are not tangible force-fields which protect us from violence but you would be creating a strawman because natural rights are just a moral sentiment we derive from a biological phenomenon, i.e., the innate desire of humans to live free.

If you do not recognize the morality of natural rights you're free to live in the jungle with the rest of the animals.



Wake up and smell the roses? I guffaw at your misuse of a classic saying...:lol:
Click to expand...

Cut him some slack, it was a clear and obvious sentence and you casually brushed it off with a lame dismissal tactic.

You deserved the heat, so take it like a man and get to the point.
 
Jerry said:
If a right is a social construct, then all he would need to do is evidence society agreeing that such a right exist. Rights formed by society exist even when the random token exception chooses to disagree.

The person who denies the right needs to understand that the right exists non the less within that society, despite their singular objection. That person needs to go outside of that society to be free from that right.
Click to expand...

I thanked you for this post, Jerry, since it summed things up nicely. However, to tie back to the original topic, if our society determines that it is a right to be able to ingest regulated drugs, then you may be that person who denies that right. What will you do then? :)
 
reefedjib said:
I thanked you for this post, Jerry, since it summed things up nicely. However, to tie back to the original topic, if our society determines that it is a right to be able to ingest regulated drugs, then you may be that person who denies that right. What will you do then? :)
Click to expand...

Use other existing rights to invoke a change.

Protest, write my rep, vote accordingly, donate, etc.

What I would not do is stick out my lip and say "that right doesn't exist" when the ink is on the paper for all to see.
 
Jerry said:
Use other existing rights to invoke a change.

Protest, write my rep, vote accordingly, donate, etc.

What I would not do is stick out my lip and say "that right doesn't exist" when the ink is on the paper for all to see.
Click to expand...

It's going to happen you know. I've always thought it should be the Republicans which drive the legalization. Just like they did Civil Rights. (not meaning to equate Civil Rights with drug legalization, even though that may be how it appears...) :)
 
Jerry said:
Cut him some slack, it was a clear and obvious sentence and you casually brushed it off with a lame dismissal tactic.

You deserved the heat, so take it like a man and get to the point.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I don't know what you're talking about, Jer-bear.
 
Ethereal said:
Wanting to fly like Superman is not analogous to wanting to live free, as the former is fantasy whereas the latter is indisputable biological fact.
Click to expand...

It is? Then you ought to have no problem defending that view, seeing as you think it's an "indisputable biological fact". Please explain how humans, which are biologically social ceatures, can all want to "live free".

I don't think you can do it.

Yea, Thomas Jefferson is such a moron. He should have known better than to insert a contradictory term into our Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, Jefferson was just a man, just like all of the founding fathers. They weren't special, they weren't supernatural, they were just people. I know you really want to deify the founding fathers but it's just not so.

The human desire to live free IS an objective fact; always has been, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You claimed it's an objective fact, let's see your objective evidence. This ought to be good.

A "right" is simply defined as an act with a moral basis.
Click to expand...

Considering no one can agree what that particular moral basis is, that's ridiculous. The whole idea of objective morality and ethics has been soundly refuted. I doubt you could find a single moral precept that is accepted across all cultures and across time. It just doesn't exist. And without a single objective morality, basing "rights" on them is laughable at best.

If you do not recognize the morality of natural rights you're free to live in the jungle with the rest of the animals.
Click to expand...

Please tell me this isn't some boneheaded religious bullcrap. Please.
 
Cephus said:
It is? Then you ought to have no problem defending that view, seeing as you think it's an "indisputable biological fact". Please explain how humans, which are biologically social ceatures, can all want to "live free".

I don't think you can do it.
Click to expand...

Try to kill a human and see what happens.

Try to lock your neighbor in his basement and see what happens.

Try to take a cigarette out of a stranger's mouth and see what happens.

I'm sure the results will be quite consistent amongst the population.

Believe it or not, Jefferson was just a man...
Click to expand...

Oh really!? Wow!

They weren't special...
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "special".

I know you really want to deify the founding fathers but it's just not so.
Click to expand...

Strawman...ad hominem. Typical.

Prove it. You claimed it's an objective fact, let's see your objective evidence. This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

You see evidence of it everyday; people live and exercise free will. Even right now you are proving my point by living and posting on an internet forum. I wonder what would happen if I came into your house and tried to force you off the computer.

Considering no one can agree what that particular moral basis is, that's ridiculous. The whole idea of objective morality and ethics has been soundly refuted. I doubt you could find a single moral precept that is accepted across all cultures and across time. It just doesn't exist. And without a single objective morality, basing "rights" on them is laughable at best.
Click to expand...

What do I care if a blind man doesn't see the sun? I know it's there, as does the vast majority of humanity.

Living free is what moral humans respect and cherish. If you don't agree with that particular brand of morality then live in the jungle. I mean, do you agree that living free is a moral precept or not?

Please tell me this isn't some boneheaded religious bullcrap. Please.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't, I'm an agnostic. There's nothing religious about respecting individual liberty.
 
Ethereal said:
Try to kill a human and see what happens.
Click to expand...

You most likely get arrested because it's a criminal act, as defined by our legal system. There are exceptions, you can kill in self defense, police can kill in the line of duty and soldiers often get medals if they kill other human beings. It's not universal by any means.

Try to lock your neighbor in his basement and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Depends on the circumstances. If my neighbor is being a danger to himself and/or others, I can certainly lock him in his basement while waiting for the authorities to arrive. I might even get a commendation.

Try to take a cigarette out of a stranger's mouth and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Depends on who you are. I'm sure a police officer could do it without any untoward side effects.

Even right now you are proving my point by living and posting on an internet forum.
Click to expand...

Sure, this happens to be an open forum that the public is invited to post on once they register. To do so, they have to agree to follow the rules and if they do not, they can be thrown off. If I decide to disregard the forum rules, I can lose access to them. So much for "free will".

I wonder what would happen if I came into your house and tried to force you off the computer.
Click to expand...

I'd have you arrested for trespassing and/or breaking and entering, which has nothing whatsoever to do with my "rights". It has to do with your actions. But by that reasoning, how could I possibly deny your "right" to do whatever you want to do? You lose again.

What do I care if a blind man doesn't see the sun? I know it's there, as does the vast majority of humanity.
Click to expand...

In other words, you have no rational argument. Asserting something as true doesn't make it true, nor does applying logical fallacies like argumentum ad populum.
 
EgoffTib said:
I have no idea what "loose your place" means or how it relates to discussion.
Click to expand...

That's another good example.

I've noticed this about you over the last couple days. It's as though what has been said in the previous few pages slips away from your attention. I've sen it in a few threads.

Someone says something, you respond, they replay to your response and you soon forget what you originally said which they were relying to. The context is lost so future references are not understood.

This occasionally happens to me also whenever something is going on at home.

I hope everything is well with you and yours :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
It's going to happen you know.
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Well at least legalization of marijuana will happen. Perhaps the decriminalization of those other harder drugs so that users go for treatment, rather than being imprisoned. I believe you mentioned that that was desirable.
 
Cephus said:
It would certainly be cheaper, financially, than fighting the public relations war has been. You could probably fund the drug war just on the confiscated drug money. Every single dealer is put to death. First offense, you're executed. We confiscate everything you own without exception and sell it at fair market value, not for pennies on the dollar like we do now. This might not net a lot for the low-end dealers but for the kingpins who have millions, it's a jackpot. We treat all drugs the same, we do not treat cocaine and crack differently because the rich tend to use one over the other. All the confiscated drugs go into mandatory drug treatment programs. People leave no longer addicted. There is a point at which repeat offenders have shown they are not willing to change, at which point they are handled in some way, we can debate that at another time.

We work with other countries to eliminate the drug trade within their borders. Those who refuse to work with us, we cut off all foreign aid. We execute all drug mules, drug runners and drug dealers crossing the border. Heck, leave a pile of bodies, it might dissuade anyone from trying it again.

I have no doubt it could be done. I doubt America has the stomach for it.
Click to expand...

As an American, I certainly don't. You're right, I'd rather legalize drugs.
 
On the question as to whether it is a right to consume drugs oneself, without harming others, or whether the state has the right to deny you this right, I present to you John Stuart Mill:

Mill's On Liberty addresses the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. One argument that Mill develops further than any previous philosopher is the harm principle. The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself. He does argue, however, that individuals are prevented from doing lasting, serious harm to themselves or their property by the harm principle. Because no-one exists in isolation, harm done to oneself also harms others, and destroying property deprives the community as well as oneself. [7] Mill excuses those who are "incapable of self-government" from this principle, such as young children or those living in "backward states of society".
Click to expand...
 
Everyone who thinks America should decriminalize/legalize drugs is a druggie.
 
medium said:
Everyone who thinks America should decriminalize/legalize drugs is a druggie.
Click to expand...
I like to thank trolls. I think it's like a pat on the head to a dog who just peed in the house. Massive confusion and humor ensues.
 
Absolutely not. I will support legalization of all drugs and loosening of restrictions on purchase for adults-- but decriminalization is nothing more than the law tacitly approving of illegal behavior by refusing to prosecute those who patronize and support criminal enterprises. I would rather commit our nation to the failed War on Drugs for the next century than ever allow our legal system to be subverted in this fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom