I believe all drugs should be legal
Debate Rounds (3)
This is my body, if I want to stand here with a live grenade in my hand an watch it blow up who are you to tell me I cant. Now apply that logic to every drug. You shouldnt tell other people how to live. Oh an by the way I decided your not using napkins anymore and if you do the government an I are going to break into your house, beat the $#!% out of you and convict you. You see, how can you tell me what to do if i am not hurting anyone.
I look forward to a good debate!
Yes. It is indeed your decision to take drugs, but you have to take it somewhere where there is absolutely no way of coming in contact with others. It is your body. There are lots of ways drugs can damage your body, but it is your decision to inflict the pain onto yourself.
Drugs can cause you to do things you do not intend to do, like punching a person, kicking a person, hell, even killing one. So, yes, indeed, you do affect others from taking drugs.
So, that is why I believe drugs should remain illegal. I await my opponent's arguments.
Thank you for the pleasant disposition in both your intro an outré
That being said I have one question So, what your telling me is you want me not to be able to do something because of something I may do while in use? Sounds like Soviet Russia by that logic cars should be illegal because you may hit someone, protests should be illegal because it could turn into a riot an back to my earlier point since you may add chloroform to your napkin and use it your napkins should be schedule 1 don't you see that it never works trading freedom for safety, it is a deal with the devil.
Thank you again I await your debate.
Basically, my opponent is asking if I believe drugs should be illegal because it can cause harm, and brings in other examples of good-doing that can potentially cause harm.
However, the thing here is, cars, while they have their own potential dangers, have goods in their use. Same with the protests. Drugs have absolutely no good use.
I await my opponent's arguments.
No, I your opponent am saying drugs shouldn't be illegal and you my friend are to give points on why it should remain so. So far all I've seen is opinions and risks that exist with or without these laws. The only thing these laws do is fill our prisons and waste police efforts that could have gone to a better cause. Regulations on drugs would not be a bad thing but to simply tell someone you cant do this because I feel it may affect me is the premise of many wars and prohibitional gangsters. The facts are this I own my body, you do not I own my drugs, you do not if you are not certain that I will do something nefarious because of this which you cannot be, then you can not tell me I cannot indulge.
Something you must understand this is a place of facts not opinions there is a section for that, in your opinion : "Drugs have absolutely no good use.". Perfectly fine don't use drugs, as it doesn't suit your opinions but are you really telling me you should be able to tell me what and what not to do based on possibilities? that is tyranical. the facts are most illegal substances were at one time used spiritually or medically. you can not be sure I will harm anyone else with drugs. Drugs would create tax revenue that could go to police efforts in important matters such as rape and murder. The last and most important fact, you can not tell me what is of use to me.
I await my opponents rebuttal.
Basically, my opponent indicates that he has forgotten parts of my arguments. He is still making the following point: "It is my own body. Drugs may damage my body, but it is my decision." In the first round, I made an argument, and this is definitely NO opinion, that one of the many influences of drugs is that it can cause you to become somewhat unconscious, which can cause you do things you do not intend to do and not be aware by the dangers of what you are doing, such as killing. Killing is a potential from taking drugs, and that indeed, affects others.
Yes, indeed, I said that drugs absolutely do not do good as if it was an opinion, as I wasn't specific enough. Luckily, I have one more chance to go for saying this as fact, so here we go: Drugs have the good of pleasure (If taken uselessly), though if taken uselessly, it can render you unconscious and do things such as killing. If you think that is alright, that is like saying killing itself is alright because it has the good of pleasure. Also, if drugs are needed to be taken (e.g. You have the flu. You need medicine), go ahead. There was an actual benefit to use it, and if drugs are taken because they are needed, it will not cause you to become unconscious. If it was taken and it did not do much, it is acceptable to overdose, but overdosing because you want to can render you unconscious, and as I have been saying, can cause you to do things such as killing.
I thank my opponent for such a debate. I leave it up to the voters to choose a side.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IAmAWalrus 2 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:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Dr.Whatif I vote for Con
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.