Do individuals have an intrinsic right to consume recreational substances regardless of the legality?

  • The majority should not have control over the individual or their personal affairs

    If someone wants to say, do LSD , they should be able to it without fear of being punished by the government. It is not right for someone to be punished because drugs are wrong in some peoples' opinions. It's pretty much like saying, " I disagree with your decisions, go straight to jail" and instead of collecting 200 dollars you pay thousands. It's ridiculous!!

  • Only an individual lives with the consequences of what they consume

    Individuals have a fudamental right to consume what they want when they want for two fundamental reasons. First being that an individual has a right to the pursuit of happiness and to control their life in a way they see fit as long as it does not directly interfere with the happiness of others. The only person who has control of a body are the people who own it. A body is the sole property of that human and therefore that human has full discretion of what is put into it. By regulating what people can and cannot consume, they are violating the right of another individual to persue happiness. Second fundamental reason is that these are god given rights, which means that no law created by man supersedes divine rights which all individuals have by birth. Regardless of the legality of a certain substance, it is against the law of humanity to prohibit use of substances which only affect the individual. When a substance causes an individual to behave in a manner which violates other rights and prevents others from pursuing happiness the fault is in the action and choice the individual makes to violate others rights, not the substance which may have influenced that decision. Per example two people can consume alcohol and while one is calm and enjoys the substance without being violent or acting in mal demeanor, while one may become violent and hostile, the reason only the hostile individual is at a fault is due to the individuals decision to directly affect other people negatively. The fact that the only individual can enjoy the substance without directly affecting others is proof that consumption of a substance is not something that violates others rights and therefore is a fundamental right to the individual.

  • Who are you to tell me what I can/can not ingest?

    We all are born with unalienable rights correct? The right to live life and pursue happiness in our own way. When a group of people decide that you are not allowed as a society to have something, who are these assholes, why do they think they have god like knowledge and power to tell the rest of the world, no you can not have that because well we said you can't. Well all because you said I can not is not good enough reason for me and it never will be. If someone tries to take my birth right from me, IE my free will, they are trying to enslave and force their own ideals upon me, at that time is when violent action is needed. Yes you try to suppress my natural born rights, I will take your life from you, simple as that. It is our life, our decisions, and the micro-managing that the world governments are doing is suppression of free will. Well I will not be suppressed by men in suits. And if they wish to send boys in blue to suppress me, then a few of those boys in blue are gonna die with me.

  • legality is irrelevant

    Certain drugs tend to have been made illegal throughout history because of fear and warped moral beliefs, while dangerous drugs like alcohol remain legal. It is time for all prohibitionists to admit we were wrong. There is strong evidence proving that MDMA is far less harmful that alcohol and other dangerous activities like driving over the speed limit.

  • Yes, I am the manager of what goes in my body.

    I have an intrinsic right to plant a seed, grow a tree, take its leaves and smoke it if I so choose, so long as I'm not harming anyone. This obsession with government control in this area has caused more harm than good. The war on drugs has never seemed to work, and instead we wind up with draconian laws for punishing petty crimes.

  • Government isn't my parent

    I was already raised by my parents and luckily both are still alive. I don't need the government deciding what's best for me and what's not. The government gave me an education to do that for myself. I should be able to use whatever I want whenever I want, if I happen to violate some other person's rights in the process, then I should be punished. Until someone else is involved, I have the right to do whatever I like.

  • Its my right!

    If individuals have the right to ingest alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, fat food and plenty other unhealthy substances that costs the state money and cause havoc in many ways, why do I not have the right to ingest substances that I prefer? Because somewhere in recent history people imagined they have the right to decide on my behalf. I reject that. I have full right to decide what I want to ingest. I will not be prescribed to by someone who has ulterior motives or the inflated self view that he or she has the right to make life decisions on my behalf. Its my body and and my life. The substances, like dagga, that I choose have been PROVEN to be safer that legal substances like alcohol.

  • Lets stop being Idealistic and more Realisitic

    I don't want to say much except that we should look closely at Portugal! They will be a good example of the effect of making drugs legal in society will be. And we can already see that society has not fallen apart, but rather drug abuse has dropped since addicts no longer need to hide from friends and family, and can now face drug problems with support from society. Alcohol is still one of the worst drugs so as long as someone feels alcohol can remain legal cannot argue the illegality of illicit drugs, since the conflict of logic here cannot be reconciled easily. Lets be realistic about drug problems and not idealistic.

  • People Should Be Allowed To Do What They Want To Their Body

    Whether or not a drug is illegal obviously isnt stopping people from using it. It's just putting people in jail and costing us money that we don't have. If Meth or Heroin was legal, it wouldn't make people do it more just because it would be legal. If Meth was legal I still wouldnt use, because I know the risks and what it would do to us. We have a basic human right of free will and we should be able to use whatever recreational substance we want if we feel it will make us happier.

  • People know what's coming when they do drugs.

    Whenever somebody has, say, heroin, they know that it damages their minds and body. As long as they are provided with that knowledge, I see know problem in legalizing the consumption of the drug.

  • The Bible states to follow God's laws, as well as the laws of man.

    I am not a super religious person, but laws are put into place for a reason. The common man may not know these reasons and they may not agree with the reasons, but that is not for them to decide. A serial killer does not agree with the laws that say murder is against the law, but that does not make the serial killer right or have the right to do it, without being charged.

    Posted by: 5c0tJung
  • Drugs are not legal for recreational use for a reason: the damage to overall health and logical thinking abilities should not be equated to fun.

    Too many of our recreational drug users today cannot cope with reality, hold a job, or contribute to society in any meaningful area. It becomes all about the drug for them.

    Posted by: VivaciousOllie54
  • No, because recreational substances affect judgment and physical responses, sometimes putting others in danger.

    Our government isn't a buzz kill, just trying to keep people from having fun by outlawing certain substances. There are so many accidents attributed to drivers under the influence of an illegal drug that it is necessary to enforce these prohibitions for the public safety. This is one of our government's Constitutional responsibilities - to ensure public safety.

    Posted by: NettN355
  • Since drugs are against the law it is not something people get to choose to do.

    Drugs are harmful to people and this is why they are outlawed at this time. There is no reason why people should want to be allowed to do so unless they want to do it for a bad or over indulgent reason. People should stay away from illegal things because they are not good for you.

    Posted by: B3rkIffy
  • No, I disagree. Individuals cannot benefit by taking recreational substances as they are often harmful to the body.

    Individuals do have a right to choose what to consume, however recreational substances are mostly addictive, which affects the mental and the physical state of a person in the long run. Often, the addiction causes overdoses and eventually the person either hurts himself or others.

    Posted by: LeftyBlondie
  • The reason I don't feel that individuals have an intrinsic right to consume recreational substances regardless of the legality is because a person on drugs may harm others.

    The reason I don't feel that individuals have an intrinsic right to consume recreational substances regardless of the legality is because drugs can affect a person negatively. A person who is affected negatively, whether physically or mentally or both, might be putting others in harms way. If there was a guarantee they would not harm anybody but themselves, maybe I'd think differently. But people using drugs may be a danger to kids and others.

    Posted by: JeffP4ri5
  • Certain recreational drugs are VERY addictive and cause the person to become self destructive. They should be illegal.

    Certain drugs such as crack cocaine cause very self destructive behavior in the people that become addicted. They have been described as stealing away the souls of people. They cause addicts to spend too much of their money to buy more drugs. They cause addicts to steal from the relatives to buy more drugs. Addicts have a hard time keeping jobs because the drugs interfere with their lives too much. Anything this harmful should not be legalized.

    Posted by: ddeathnote
  • No, because their recreational behavior may still affect others.

    The consumption of recreational substances may still have long-term effects on the society as a whole. Individuals may, at some point in life, have adequate resources, financial as well as others, like medical benefits, to cover the cost of any medical issues associated with recreational use. But over time and years, the impact is already well-documented. Substance abuse can carry lifelong implications, and if individuals later in life find themselves relying on social support, the rest of society ends up covering the costs of those health implications from earlier abuse. Sign a waiver that society doesn't need to pay for your health concerns later in life, and maybe I would agree.

    Posted by: OmeroAnnon
  • No, because the laws preventing this are needed to protect society.

    If illegal recreational substances harmed only the individual, then I would easily say that people should have a right to consume them. However, such consumption has huge impacts on other aspects, such as family, community, and the general safety of the public. No individual should be allowed to trample on the rights and safety of others.

    Posted by: SpikyWesley

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.