An individual's drug usage infringes on the rights of others?
Debate Rounds (3)
In the UK we have the problem of supporting a huge health budget alongside other budgets. In the health budget there's money going to a multitude of organisations that wouldn't exist without drug usage. Alcoholics anonymous for instance, the needle exchange or others.
Domestic violence, rape and drunken disorderly charges cost peoples money too! the police have to get paid to solve these problems, however badly they do this.
Then there's unreported behaviour; its well known cocaine and alcohol increase aggressiveness and make you ave' someone in pub. In a community where drug use is seen as legal this is excepted behaviour! I like my clubbing experience to be better myself. Accident and emergency health centres are again paid to deal with the resulting injuries. All of this costs tax payers money.
The problem can't just be left, people who have lay in their spew after a rough night out have to be cleaned up and so do the nightmare families where drug use is typical.
I will as a result presume you are referring to economic and civil freedom as your examples of violated rights. To constitute the NHS's many economic problems to drug use, is again simplistic, the actually influence of such factors are far out weighted by the expenditure upon bureaucracy. Also drug use and the money spent by the health service upon its presumed (very debatable implications; such as aggressiveness due to there are a number of variables in any such study) resulting actions are not the cause of the infringements of civil rights but a result of them. The socialist redistribution of wealth is what you are arguing is a infringement of rights, the money taken to pay for any resulting drug use would be taken anyway due to drug use not being a main component of William Beveridge's argued welfare policy. I do accept that drug use does contribute to any costing but it is not the sole reason (even a main reason) for such movement of money from one to the state, thus meaning even if not one penny was spent was upon any presumed result of drug use wouldn't mean ones economic rights are any less infringed as the whole purpose of social insurance would mean the money would be taken anyway.
I would also strongly contest the link between drug use and rape. you also offer no definition of what you would class as a "drug" because you make no distinction between legal or illegal by offering two such examples ( Alcohol and cocaine) . i will again presume you mean any substance that can be seen to have negative effects upon one or society should be classed as a drug. if this to be the case, i argue almost any substance in large amounts can have negative effects upon an individual or individuals thus making your argument untenable.
and finally returning to the use of action and reaction theory, if ones actions having a implication upon another being a infringement of rights then any action undertaken by an individual can be seen to infringe upon another as every action must have a reaction even socially.
I look forward to your reply,
I'd like to start off where you left off; you said "if ones actions having a implication upon another being a infringement of rights then any action undertaken by an individual can be seen to infringe upon another as every action must have a reaction even socially". I presume by your statement you meant that ingesting a drug is the same as freedom of speech as both effect surrounding people. Separation of the two is easy, a drug has hardly any utility for a person and can easily be removed without serious pain or injury whereas freedom of speech is necessary and performs a function in society, without it people may be harmed through omission. The impacts on surrounding people from drug use is optional and dependant on itself whereas impacts on society through freedom of speech, individuality and some other actions are not optional but a necessary component of our lives. If a problem occurs it should be sorted out.
Secondly I'd like to support the idea that drug use causes a rise in rape occurrence by using the term "date rape drugs". Some drugs like Rohypnol and GHB are used specifically to recreate conditions where a person is easy to take advantage of; this source describes the effects of rohypnol and events leading up to drug induced rape (http://oregonstate.edu...). Drug legality effects the occurrence of drugs in our community and attitudes towards them, banning them i profess would decrease drug availability.
Thirdly I'd like to defend my stance on drug use and the NHS. You wrote " To constitute the NHS's many economic problems to drug use, is again simplistic, the actually influence of such factors are far out weighted by the expenditure upon bureaucracy". In response to this statement I'd like to say i was just using drug use related services in the NHS as an example of the impacts of drug use on others, which you partially agreed with, i was not stating that drug use is the only factor effecting NHS efficiency. There is the problem of incompetent staff and the lowering educational standards too. To argue in favour of bureaucracy, bureaucracy partly solves problems with institutional discrimination, people of different race can attend different public organisations to avoid penalization. Also in the UK its impossible to avoid a bureaucracy on subjects such as health and human rights. These issues are very important and effect many people; in just one region, Manchester for example, there can be two or three public level organisations, funded by the NHS, performing the same role. More coverage area means more treatment, and more jobs as well as the tiresome longer deliberation periods for new policy.
Lastly I would like to say I am not a collectivist, I'm a Belshovikian if the situation calls for it, but I am not contending that socialist spending is necessarily a negative impact on human rights. I propose that no organisation or individual can make business by selling a drug in our community. As i said doing this causes physiological debilitation and behavioural disorder which ruins society for all. Please see supporting source which lists the negative effects of amphetamine, including aggressiveness (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...). Socialist intervention is necessary to manage issues such as HIV, immigration and issues difficult to treat and linked to drug use. To continue drug use with these measures in place is unintelligent and egotistical, it is a waste; drug use is an action which can be stopped easily and shouldn't impact on the tax bill of those that disagree with drug legalization.
To summarize -
-i am proposing a reactionary attitude to drug use and its consequences
-drug use is optional however and can be stopped; other behaviours which effect society are not and cannot be stopped (inequality in consumption of natural resources for instance or freedom of speech) and therefore they should not be compared.
-The existence of "date rape drugs" proves the correlation between rape and drug use, whether personal or not.
-And i am calling the acceptance and diffusion of drugs in our community a violation of human right and not public spending aiming to alleviate public health problems.
"Secondly I'd like to support the idea that drug use causes a rise in rape occurrence by using the term "date rape drugs". Some drugs like Rohypnol and GHB are used specifically to recreate conditions where a person is easy to take advantage of" I would like to suggest that the question is poorly worded; "An individual's drug usage infringes on the rights of others?" the use of langue suggests we are arguing ones drug use upon themselves not others, i find it hard to believe anyone would be able to find an argument against forced intoxication and as such believe the question is misleading if that is the position you would take.
Also the majority of cases of such drug use in rape is mainly concerned with crimes against people whom are not known previously to the attacker, I would as a result like to remind you that the majority reported rape cases (there is reason to believe that the reported number is far exceeded by the number of unreported.) are situations where both parties are known to the other and one is using their socio-economic position to enforce such acts.
Many of your arguments have a distinctly western philosophy to them, your idolisation of free speech being such a example; you're applying relative definitions to human nature not universal. your arguments flaws are found in the prohibition america, where banning of the substance didn't alleviate use and in such nations as Portugal, where public spending when drug use was illegal and legal is roughly the same since, the imprisonment of users costs roughly the same as health based solutions.
you also allocate no benefits to drug use either to wider society; examples of African and South American societies where drug use is integral to stability and personal growth being one such example. Also many western thinkers have been intoxicated for large parts of their lives; Churchill, Hitchens, Thompson, Poe, Fitzgerald and Hemingway. The examples provided are of people whom, alcohol was the drug of choice, i'm suggest although having negative effects it would be naive to suggest their addiction didn't have positive effects up their writings and thus contribution to wider society. if we was to use the example of heroin in relation to musicians, our examples would be far exceed the previous list. Just because there are negative effects doesn't mean there isn't positive ones at the same time. Medical benefits of drug use again are found across the east and west in large numbers.
and again, you offer no example of what a "human right" is, many academics have debated such a topic, societies value different things, a right to one wouldn't be to another. I would like to suggest, the use of the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org...), which i would suggest means drug use doesn't contravene any, unless proscribed in law, which i would like to suggest for the sake of argument we exclude.
The statement i made about human rights was paraphrased from Wikipedia, which is a fairly reasonable source. Allow me to explain my ambiguous statements.
The suggestion i made that freedom of speech is necessary from society and separate from optional drug use i think would be adopted by the majority of deprived countries outside of the western world. Yes in some situations obedience to a rigid hierarchy is necessary; in many cases however a hierarchy lead s to oppression and suffering. The oppressed do not get anywhere without voicing their opinion to change their circumstances, that is what protest all over the world is about. How anyone but the cruel and exploitive can see the poverty of India as a plus is eluding. The poverty of India should be seen as a tragedy, and if a result of other conquering nations, unavoidable in the sense that its avoidance would lead to suffering elsewhere. How parasitism of water supplies and starvation stands in an argument for drug use i do not know. The plights of countries such as Africa and South America or India are terrible compared to the good life led in America and Britain; perhaps the positive use of drugs in poorer nations is an assumption and un-reflected in the socio economic status and therefore life chances of these people. The use of drugs in western nations is also not glamorized upon socio economic reflection.
When saying an Individuals drug use I'm referring to any utility a drug has to a person. The effects of drug use through ingestion are equally hazardous as financially capitalizing by another's drug use. Drug dealing is the same as starting a Sunday business mowing Aunt Pauline's grass, except you are knowingly causing psychosis and other ailments for the consumer. I apologise if drug dealing was not inclusive of your concept of drug use.
One final point before i finish up - you say "Medical benefits of drug use again are found across the east and west in large numbers" after criticising me for my western attitude! The proposition that drugs should be supplied for ailments is an example of institutionalization, defined as "the development of excessive dependency on the institution and its routines". The problem if ill health in society should be treated at the starting point with caution and care. All drugs have many negative consequences, including performance enhancing drugs which are illegal in sporting competition. Drugs effect physical ability, respiratory output and cause disease. Therefore drugs should not be dispersed in society on any level.
Again drug use is an optional action with negative consequence, we do not, as humans, have to ingest drugs; instead we should limit exposure to debilitating substances and those that cause harm to avoid complications.
GorillaAcademia forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.