frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Should we legalize all drugs?

Debate Information

Should we legalize every drug or at least some version of every drug? 
There are numerous benefits, such as: 
Lots of drug cartels and gangs that rely on drug money could be put out of business. It will be a new source of tax revenue. It will destigmatize drug use and help people who are addicted (could create safe injection sites) and making drugs much safer when people use them because they come from a regulated business (or make it for free if you go to an injection site). 
Should they just be decriminalized? 
Should only some be made legal? 
Should they stay how they are now?
Wheelman
  1. Live Poll

    Should all drugs be legalized?

    24 votes
    1. Yes, and have safe injection sites
      25.00%
    2. No, but decriminalize them.
      20.83%
    3. No, only legalize a few.
      33.33%
    4. No, keep it how it is now.
      20.83%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • WheelmanWheelman 18 Pts   -  
    Decriminalization is the best solution. All individuals have a right to put any substance in their bodies, even dangerous things. 
    Starlord616
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    No, because this isn't about what happens to the individuals who are under the influence, its about what people under the influence do to other people. Drugs lead people who are not financially stable to commit crimes to continue their addiction.

    The only drugs that should be legalized are the ones that are less dangerous and carry a low risk of addiction.
    AnuragBZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Everything that individuals do in private or in mutual consent with other individuals should be legal, obviously. If someone wants to shoot heroin every evening, then it is their business; it is their right to ruin their own life if they choose to do so.

    People should be responsible enough to not do things to themselves. It is not up to the government to babysit them, in my opinion.

    I am nearly 30, and I have not had a single cigarette in my life, have not smoked pot a single time, have not tried any drugs, and only drink alcohol once every few months. Nobody compelled me to do so, except for myself. And this is how everyone should act: take responsibility and face consequences of their actions.
    smoothie
  • MayCaesar said:
    Everything that individuals do in private or in mutual consent with other individuals should be legal, obviously. If someone wants to shoot heroin every evening, then it is their business; it is their right to ruin their own life if they choose to do so.

    People should be responsible enough to not do things to themselves. It is not up to the government to babysit them, in my opinion.

    I am nearly 30, and I have not had a single cigarette in my life, have not smoked pot a single time, have not tried any drugs, and only drink alcohol once every few months. Nobody compelled me to do so, except for myself. And this is how everyone should act: take responsibility and face consequences of their actions.

    Are you sure you have never taken an illegal drug? The idea of Drug War also meant that drugs had been official recognized as a weapon of War. Meaning they could be used against a person without their knowledge effecting their life. You have given no chance what so ever to haven been drug? Even the average person who may try a drug is never sure if the narcotic or chemical they take is in truth what they have been told it is. For the most part drugs are legal being proven as abused in a wrong way, controlled by licensed regulation. On the other end of a massive Civil War is the basic principle that some drugs actual are property of cooperation, or even person which went through a  process to make the substance to be regulated publicly. 

    When taking the side of someone who is, or is in care of a person seriously ill, is there a United State Constitutional right to manufacture medication to place a influence on a cost that can be charge? As when we make a effort to establish a legal status on drugs this is one of many issues which are involved. This above and beyond the idea of generic medication.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Well, I only moved to the US in 2014 to begin with, so the Drug War did not affect me as much as it did most other Americans. I obviously cannot be absolutely sure that I have never taken a drug accidentally, although I do not see how it could possibly happen. But, at least, consciously I avoid drugs like a plague. I do not like being in an altered consciousness state, and even when I get tipsy from alcohol (very-very rarely), I dislike the state I am in.

    Everybody has a choice on what to consume. People like to act as if drugs completely take over the individual and make them addicted with no way out, but at the end of the day the individual is the one who makes a conscious decision to keep consuming drugs. No addiction is permanent, and however hard it may be, it is always possible to break out of it. There have been people who quit heroin (arguably the most addictive drug in the world) after over 5 years of consuming it through immense effort and willpower. There is absolutely no excuse for keeping consuming drugs, alcohol or cigarettes when one wants to quit, and they only have themselves to blame if they do not.

    My father quit smoking after over 40 years of being huge smoker. He tried quitting many times, but could not do it. Getting cancer and going through a very painful treatment period was what it took for him to quit. So he could quit in the end, he just needed enough motivation! But that motivation was absolutely available to him all the time, he just had to call it down and quit. Unfortunately most people are not disciplined enough to do the right thing, until they have no other choice left - and, again, nobody is to blame for it, but them.
    AnuragB
  • @MayCaesar ;

    It is fare to believe a person has had, and might have a choice on what they consume at the least in the way of medication to a degree.  The chemical influence on such public things as disease for public health standards, along with outside area abuses of narcotic, prescribed medications as a weapon of War, used against the public as cruel prank. The forum topic is not really about the Drug War as a Civil world wide battle front claiming lives. The focus here is on basic obstacles to limit possibilities of grievance as legal dispute.

  • AmericanFurryBoyAmericanFurryBoy 531 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    I think its safe to legalize low value/low affect drugs such as weed, shrooms, and other pure hallucinogens due to the fact that they are harder to OD on and get addicted to. However I strongly believe that opioids and opiates should remain illegal due to their high addiction, OD, related crime rates(I.e. robbery for drug money, robbery due to the affects, assault do to the affects, driving under the influence etc.)
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    I really hate it when people claim that we should legalize all drugs but then it turns out they have never even been prescribed painkillers. This is indicative of a complete inability to empathize with those who are currently addicted to drugs, and I'm not even sure I can on account of the only time I used opiates is when I received them legally after getting my wisdom teeth pulled. From that single experience, I can completely understand why anyone would get addicted and f*** for several hours straight.

    Expecting people to take responsibility for their actions is completely ridiculous when we are getting people addicted to these drugs after receiving legal opioids such as Oxycontin. This is the source of the drug war, and calling for less restrictions is completely ridiculous. We need to make these drugs illegal, because right now people are getting addicted to those and then getting them illegally of the street when they can no longer get them legally.

    The reason I am a left leaning libertarian and not a right leaning libertarian is because I don't believe that people truly have free will and can not be in control of themselves, and need an environment in which we can thrive without risk of falling into any pitfalls like drug addiction. If anything has a net negative impact on society, it is only reasonable that we make those things illegal. 
    AmericanFurryBoy
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    I've been to Denver Colorado, and the most fascinating aspect to the Legalization of weed, is that some of the homeless population are able to afford weed?

    You might be of the hope that some of the homeless, would value a roof over their heads, and meal on their dinner table, instead, being homeless, and smoking marijuana is the more preferred way of living? 

    Or how many Marijuana addicts are indulging in their medical marijuana, and legalized marijuana around their own kids or families?

    That's some brave parenting. 
    ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  

    If anything has a net negative impact on society, it is only reasonable that we make those things illegal. 
    I am not sure you understand what you just wrote. In a single sentence you justified all totalitarian regimes in human history, and all future totalitarian regimes as well. Any totalitarian system fundamentally is rooted in the assumption that the well-being of the collective triumphs the freedoms of the individual.

    Perhaps you meant something else by this and your phrasing was off. But the usage of "we" gives it away as a genuine belief. 

    Who are "we" anyway? Am I a part of "we", hence able to opt out of this deal? Or am I a servant of "we" and have to comply with whatever the commissars decide?
  • qwerrty said:
    Should we legalize every drug or at least some version of every drug? 
    There are numerous benefits, such as: 
    Lots of drug cartels and gangs that rely on drug money could be put out of business. It will be a new source of tax revenue. It will destigmatize drug use and help people who are addicted (could create safe injection sites) and making drugs much safer when people use them because they come from a regulated business (or make it for free if you go to an injection site). 
    Should they just be decriminalized? 
    Should only some be made legal? 
    Should they stay how they are now?

    In order to change the way criminal regulation is shaped around drugs how they are defended in grievance needs to be addressed. Ideas of laws such as murder and drug possession are legislated to insure a propped regulation of authority.

    I have little time must get back to work so to make a quick point marijuana and many substances like opioids are in fact pollution issues. Not ownership issue and it is this argument that becomes the United State which can be used as the possible more perfect union to basic belief and historic law.

    We the people do not make something legal by law....We the people prove things are to be governed under independence by law. Restricting degrees of independence and governing as then union is called into question by grievance.
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 3985 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    If anything has a net negative impact on society, it is only reasonable that we make those things illegal. 
    I am not sure you understand what you just wrote. In a single sentence you justified all totalitarian regimes in human history, and all future totalitarian regimes as well. Any totalitarian system fundamentally is rooted in the assumption that the well-being of the collective triumphs the freedoms of the individual.

    Perhaps you meant something else by this and your phrasing was off. But the usage of "we" gives it away as a genuine belief. 

    Who are "we" anyway? Am I a part of "we", hence able to opt out of this deal? Or am I a servant of "we" and have to comply with whatever the commissars decide?
    Playing devil's advocate here but, sure you can opt out anytime... Plenty of other countries to choose from if you don't like the one you're in, or the direction that society wishes to take...  Just like with private transactions. no one forced you to chose that society... Granted, if that society stops you from leaving you're obviously not free... 

    Just playing devil's advocate here...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    In the United States, the illegal immigration culture, is being enabled by the existence of the 300 sanctuary cities, that were created to kiss up to those 22 million plus illegal immigrants who are here illegally.

    I view those 300 Sanctuary cities, as a form of Legalized Illegal Immigration. 

    Because what have some of those illegal immigrants being doing for years, trafficking illegal drugs into the United States, while some of those human Drug Mules, are accompanied by an illegal immigrant, armed with assault rifles? 

    Oh yeah, legalize the illegal drugs, so that the marijuana addicts across the country, get rewarded for babying their marijuana addiction problems, and then raising their own kids, around their self created marijuana addiction problems?






    ZeusAres42
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I hear this argument often, but this analogy has issues. With private institutions, I, first, have to initiate a contract with them, while with the government the contract is imposed upon me when I am born. Second, with private institutions I have the option to not interact with any of them, while staying on my private land - while the government controls my private land and enforces its laws on it. Third, with private institutions the easement principle holds, which, in particular, states that I can pass through someone else's property if that is the only way to leave my property, and I do not have to abide by the rules established on that property while doing so - while the government does not allow me to leave my house without entering its legal domain.

    Granted, I am all for people moving to countries that best match their values; I moved to the US myself, for example. But one does not have to have to do so in order to escape coercion. After all, if I walk into someone's house with a gun and tell them, "If you do not like my presence here, then you can always just move to a different house", then it will be considered an act of robbery, will it not?

    We also should really clarify what we mean by "society". Can a society do something? It always comes down to the individuals endorsed by a fraction of the society establishing societal rules. When we stop making this distinction and start seeing society as a force in its own, with individuals merely being its small parts, then problems arise, because now we can justify virtually any actions of the endorsed individuals by claiming they are mandated by the society.

    The core problem with collectivism is that it poses that a society is a force in itself and a value in itself, and individuals, in one way or another, are merely means to its ends. This is a very dangerous proposition, and a deeply inhumane one too, in my view.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I would argue exactly the opposite is true, too much freedom is the root cause of totalitarianism, even though that isn't intuitive.

    Take anarchy for instance. This system has maximum freedom from the onset, but as time goes on it quickly becomes the least free. Why? It's because there is nothing stopping the strong from taking as they please from the weak.The most basic hierarchies quickly develop into organised totalitarian regimes in as little as a few days. The end result is a system that has a relatively small number of completely free people at the top, but overall has very little freedom.

    On the other hand, the basis of liberalism is that we take away the freedoms that allow one person to violate another individual's  freedom, or harm the system itself. So every individual is less free than the privileged few under anarchy, but the overall freedom is much higher because the freedoms are more distributed to everyone.

    Paradoxically, the way to get the most freedom for the most people is to limit certain freedoms and rights. This is what I mean by that statement.

    So if there is a substance that causes people to become addicted potentially for the rest of their lives, that is at first given to them legally by a company which seeks to maximize profit despite having damning research about that product, then the aftermath is hugely detrimental to both society at large, slows the economy, and kills tens of thousands of people every year, making that product legal and stating that anyone who uses it "needs to take personal responsibility" does not solve the problem. Decriminalizing it so that those who need help can get help makes sense, but the products themselves should not be allowed to be manufactured or distributed.

    "We" refers to every tax-paying citizen of the country in question, in this case the US.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDB said:
    I've been to Denver Colorado, and the most fascinating aspect to the Legalization of weed, is that some of the homeless population are able to afford weed?

    You might be of the hope that some of the homeless, would value a roof over their heads, and meal on their dinner table, instead, being homeless, and smoking marijuana is the more preferred way of living? 

    Or how many Marijuana addicts are indulging in their medical marijuana, and legalized marijuana around their own kids or families?

    That's some brave parenting. 

    Funny thing about marijuana regulation when a person can’t end up in jail or prison stale marijuana ends up in the trash for free.

    Do you know why pot smokers are so mellow?



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Happy_Killbot

    Anarchy has never worked because it has always been rooted in authoritarian ideologies. Virtually all attempts at an anarchy were done through collectivist ideas, which logically lead to authoritarianism. I do not know if anarchy can work in principle, but I do know that there can never be too much freedom.

    The basis of liberalism you are describing is a basic principle of human rights. It is a restriction against one individual infringing on another's freedom, and such rules are necessary for a society to function.

    This is not what we are talking about here. Nobody harms anyone by just consuming heroin on their kitchen. Now, someone can get drugged, lose their mind, go outside and start killing people - but by the same token, any sober individual can just as much lose their mind, go outside and start killing people. It is the actual act of violence that should be condemned, not what subjectively may have led to it. This is the only way I know to have a society of free individuals; any other way either makes individuals servants of the collective, or servants of each other.

    If you are talking about every citizen of the country, then what about those citizens whose opinion runs contrary to that of the majority? Is it really every citizen, or only every citizen having a certain view? On a free market, indeed, every citizen makes decisions, because they can either buy a certain product or not to buy it, apply to a certain job and not apply to it - everything is in their hands. This is not the case when talking about policymaking in any of the modern societies: ultimately it comes down to a large fraction of the population giving mandate to an elite group of people to issue and enforce new laws, and the opinion of those who disagree with these laws does not count.
    This does not look like "we" to me, but rather "they", speaking from the position of someone who does not support some of the popular laws.
    Now, I am all for a proper democratic process - but it should be done within a framework of some Constitutional constraints guaranteeing people some uninfringeable rights. In my opinion, all victimless actions (including all mutually consensual actions, no matter what their long-term repercussions may be) should be constitutionally protected, and it is not a very unpopular opinion in the libertarian movement.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I agree with you mostly but there are some drugs that will most definetely make you much more prone to violence. you are now affecting others and not just yourself. It's the same reason we dont allow drinking and driving.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @MichaelElpers

    Even so, unless you actually commit an act of violence, you should not be prosecuted. It is important not to get onto the slippery slope of enforcing seemingly important preemptive measures, as virtually anything can be categorised as having a possibility to lead to violence, and there is no end to the series of regulations that would follow as a consequence.

    Besides, these restrictions actually harm people in some cases. I heard of a guy who was slightly tipsy after going to a bar with friends, but his blood alcohol content was a bit over 0.08%. It was a very cold winter night, so he got into a car, turned on the heater and fell asleep. The heater turned off automatically, but the guy was slumbering so deep, he did not notice it until his body cooled down to the lethal level - he could not be saved.
    Was a tiny chance that he would hit someone worth having him die like this in the name of safety? I do not think so.

    Regulations, even the most innocent ones, always have strong negative consequences. I believe that, unless there seems to be absolutely no way to make a system work without a given restriction, it is better to never impose that restriction.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @MayCaesar Yes, the chance of him hitting someone else was worth forcing him not to drive.

    He made the decision to drink, not go with any designated drivers and not to get a taxi.  Not that it matters but if he slept to a lethal level im going to guess he was more than a little drunk...im guessing 0.08 was his lvl when he died.

     You dont get to put other peoples lives in serious danger because of your actions.  All the actions he made were entirely his.  

    We always draw the line at endangering someone elses life.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @MichaelElpers

    But any time anyone gets behind the wheel, they endanger others' lives. Even the best drivers out there make fatal mistakes. Where is the danger line separating what is allowed from what is not, and who should be in charge of defining this line? Saying that the society defines it really is dodging the question, because the society is not a single conscious entity, and individuals always delegate decision-making to someone upstairs.

    Furthermore, some people drive better tipsy than some others drive sober. A professional racer with 50 years of experience obviously is going to drive better, say, at 0.1% blood alcohol content, than a teenager who got her license yesterday is at 0%. Yet him doing so is illegal in the name of safety? This argument does not really work.

    There are too many issues with this type of arguments to use it to advocate for a restrictive policy. I am not saying that there should be no laws whatsoever, but those laws that are there must be very well thought out and be consistent - and it does not seem to be the case when it comes to cigarette, alcohol or drug regulations.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I dont necessarily agree that a person with 0.1% would drive better than a teenager.
    The point is it was determined that if you have a content of 0.08% you severly heighten the risk of having an accident.

    At 0.08 percent content you are ten times more likely to cause a fatal accident...anyone that does so is a selfish jerk...that seems farely logical. 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    I am pretty sure, however, that there are people who are over ten times safer drivers than some of the teenagers who just obtained a license. Which makes them, even with this, let us say, handicap into account, still safer drivers.

    This is one of the problems I have with all these laws based on arbitrary numbers: 0.08% alcohol content, 18 years age of sexual consent, 21 years smoking age, $26,000 tax bracket limit, $7.25 an hour minimum wage... These laws are applied to all individuals universally, with no regard to the individual situation.

    I want the actions that actually have harmed someone judged, not the actions that *may* in principle harm someone, even if the probability of that harm is high. Not that I think that driving drunk is a good idea, or is not a jerk idea - but something being a jerk idea does not imply that it should be outlawed.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @Happy_Killbot
    This is not what we are talking about here. Nobody harms anyone by just consuming heroin on their kitchen. Now, someone can get drugged, lose their mind, go outside and start killing people - but by the same token, any sober individual can just as much lose their mind, go outside and start killing people. It is the actual act of violence that should be condemned, not what subjectively may have led to it. This is the only way I know to have a society of free individuals; any other way either makes individuals servants of the collective, or servants of each other.

    If you are talking about every citizen of the country, then what about those citizens whose opinion runs contrary to that of the majority? Is it really every citizen, or only every citizen having a certain view? On a free market, indeed, every citizen makes decisions, because they can either buy a certain product or not to buy it, apply to a certain job and not apply to it - everything is in their hands. This is not the case when talking about policymaking in any of the modern societies: ultimately it comes down to a large fraction of the population giving mandate to an elite group of people to issue and enforce new laws, and the opinion of those who disagree with these laws does not count.
    This does not look like "we" to me, but rather "they", speaking from the position of someone who does not support some of the popular laws.
    Now, I am all for a proper democratic process - but it should be done within a framework of some Constitutional constraints guaranteeing people some uninfringeable rights. In my opinion, all victimless actions (including all mutually consensual actions, no matter what their long-term repercussions may be) should be constitutionally protected, and it is not a very unpopular opinion in the libertarian movement.
    I guess you have been privileged enough to not had any family members who were or are addicts. Thinking it doesn't effect anyone else is a basic denial of causality. If you interact with people, even if it is non-violent is still an effect. For example, children raised in families with one or more alcoholic parents tend to grow up to be alcoholics themselves. Even if you use drugs, in the safety of your own home, alone, it still effects everyone else! Why? Because they bought the drugs from someone, who most likely got them from a distribute who got them from the manufacturer who got it from laborers. Each one of those people along the way buy things and lives life, chaos ensues.

    I don't know what opinions have to do with anything, I'm talking about physical actions. I mean, I think we should abort genetically disadvantaged children by scaring parents into how hard it is to raise them. Not a popular opinion ( except in Sweden and Norway ) If a democracy is working properly, then the government will be beholden to the people, and not the other way around. However, the US isn't like that, the rich have their way rather than the masses, and this is by design. So a drug, becomes a powerful tool in the hands of a corporation, because it allows for a significant concentration of wealth to the corporation, which can then be used for political clout. Millions suffer and more die. This is what happened with Purdue Pharma, it's why so many people paint them as an evil entity. Oxycontin, is f***ing awesome, and I don't mean that in the way the cool kids mean it.

    Let me explain what it is like: Before you take the pills, there is pain. It may be tolerable or unbearable. After the pain is still there, you can feel the pain, you know where it is but you just don't care because it doesn't feel the same. It is as if needles were replaced with kittens. I can not explain this any better than that. You get a little drowsy, you sleep a lot. When you are awake, it isn't possible to be unhappy. Nothing has any feeling, and you just want to hug everyone. People you didn't like become like shadows, they don't bother you much. People you are acquaintances with are suddenly your best friends. I didn't experience sex while I was prescribed, but if I did I can only imagine what it would have been like.

    My point is it is anything but victim less, but if you have never used anything and rarely even get drunk then it is impossible for me to explain to you why it is so dangerous, and describing it can't even do it justice.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I like that you want to treat people as individuals but laws have to be applied universally.  It is impossible to factor in every part of an individual.

    Regardless of whether someone is a good or bad driver drinking severly increases the chance of you harming someone else.

    Youre basically saying there should be no such thing as attempted murder because the final act never occured.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Happy_Killbot

    Quite the contrary. My grandfather died to excessive alcoholism, and my dad got cancer due to excessive smoking and barely survived the treatment. I myself used to be addicted to video games, to the point where it significantly interfered with my career and personal life. I know well what addictions are, how dangerous they are, and how difficult it is to beat them.
    I never gave up on my core principles, however. I have always professed full individual responsibility. My stance is very unforgiving on this one. If you have an addiction, it is up to you to beat it - or to deal with the consequences of not being able to do so.

    Chaos can ensue from many sources, and many types of chaos are actually healthy for the individual and the society. Things should not be banned just because they have a potential to lead to some undesirable form of chaos, especially since all things have that potential.

    A constitutional democracy that works properly does more than make the government subservient to the masses. It also makes individuals independent from the tyranny of the masses. It is good that the US works this way to some extent, but recently (over the last century) this system has been undermined by encroaching populism. People are starting to think that just because something is popular, it should be made into a law. That is not how a civilized legal system should work. Even very popular things can sometimes be wrong, and every idea should be judged on its own merit and on its alignment with the spirit of the Constitution, rather than on how popular it is.

    I have taken opioids after multiple tooth extractions. Might be just me, but I find nothing appealing in altered states. Being high or drunk does not do it for me, makes me feel worthless and useless. I realize that it might be different for other people, but then, again, it is up to them to change their attitude towards these states.

    There cannot be victim without a predator. And unless someone sticks needles in people's arms against their will, there is no predator to speak of.


    @MichaelElpers

    This is exactly why laws that allow for a lot of individual variation should not exist. A proper legal system is flexible enough to account for individual cases, while having some general universally applicable rules - and those general rules must be very lightweight. 

    Attempted murder, of course, should be a thing - but it should require some tangible action with the clear intent of murdering someone, that fails as a result of something not going as intended by the murderer. Nowadays they sometimes accuse people who in the heat of the argument take a knife from the table and put it back immediately of attempted murder, which is utterly ridiculous.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I challenge the idea that you got over your video game addiction on your own. You have spoken on here before about how the works of Jordan Peterson have had a major impact on your life, and I think it is reasonable for me to assume that the two things are related. So do you know that you pulled yourself out, or is this just a solipsistic worldview, and in reality it was Jordan Peterson's work coupled with that of your friends and family, who themselves gave you help because of all the people that supported them making it possible, and so on?

    Your father and grandfather did not get over their addictions, and this lead to their demise despite having the tools and resources at their disposal to overcome those addictions. You might argue this is because they lacked the personal constitution to do such a thing, but I would argue this is because the human will is no where near as strong as we like to think and we are all habitual creatures, beholden more to our emotions than our logic.

    Maybe you were, from birth, genetically predisposed to be less likely to become addicted. Or perhaps, changing out of this lifestyle is not nearly as difficult as the chemical addiction of opioids, something I have not found a direct comparison for, but given that heroin is at the top of most addictive and dangerous, I would place a hefty bet that video games can't hold a candle to it being as video games don't have a high  potential to kill.

    The problem with this worldview, and a very dangerous one at that, is that you have to answer at what point someone else's problem ceases to be their problem and starts being yours. Is it your problem when someone under the influence enters leaves their property and enters a public space? Or what about when they get in a vehicle? Is it your problem when they enter your home while you are away? Or when they mug you on the streets? What about when they give "free samples" to your friends to try and get them addicted? What about to your family, or your children? 

    You read my argument about abortion right? How I think we should try to limit unwanted pregnancies? My stance on drugs takes similar reasoning. Instead of waiting for s*** to hit the fan to do anything, we should be as proactive as possible and minimize the chance of unwanted things happening in the first place, because people are dumb and irresponsible.
    Plaffelvohfenqwerrty
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    I do not think that all drugs should be legalised. Some drugs, like heroin, are extremely addictive and can ruin your life. If it was legal, college students might start taking it 'just to see what it's like' and then get addicted, needing more and more of it to stay regulated and spending all their money on the drug. Money that they should be spending on food, rent, etc. to keep living well. They would get undernourished, meaning their bodies and brains will not grow properly. In short, they would be ruined.

    The best way to stop an addiction to a drug is to take an alternative drug which prevents withdrawal symptoms, but does not have the harmful effects of the drug. For example, nicotine is a legal drug. Vaping is not, as it was once thought, the best way to stop a smoking addiction, as vaping is now being found to have some harmful side effects and more may be found in the future. The best way to stop is to take some substance containing nicotine, but not tar, arsenic and all those poisons that cigarettes contain. Once your craving is satisfied and your withdrawal symptoms are stopped, it will be much easier for you to give up nicotine altogether.

    However, I do think that some drugs should be legalised. For example cannabis has some medical uses and does not have very harmful side effects, so could be legalised if taken in some milder forms. The drug khat is taken traditionally in some countries, and the only side effects known are excitement, loss of appetite and euphoria. I think this one should be legalised because it is part of some cultures and the side effects don't look any worse than the side effects of alcohol, which is legal.
    Happy_Killbot
  • RS_masterRS_master 400 Pts   -  
    Currently illegal drugs are addictive
    Currently illegal drugs are dangerous
    Currently illegal drugs are useless

    All the drugs that are illegal currently tick all the criterias/boxes above. If you add them up together the result will eventually become death. Medicinal drugs are fine though for obvious reasons. If an illegal drug kills and the government makes illegal drugs legal he basically is killing everyone who was addicted before it was banned therefore they should keep illegal drugs banned.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @RS_master
    One thing you said is wrong. 
    You said: "Currently illegal drugs are dangerous"
    Most of them are. Some, however, are not. For example I already mentioned the drug khat, which is not dangerous in most cases.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    First of all, I learned who Jordan Peterson was years after I stopped playing video games extensively. As far as I know, I defeated this addiction when I made a retrospective analysis of my life and realised where this addiction would ultimately take me - and replaced it with more useful hobbies and better work ethics.
    I also would not say that Peterson has had a major impact on my life. I actually probably disagree with him more often than I agree with him. However, he is an extremely intelligent and informed individual, and even when I do not agree with him, his words always challenge me and make me think.
    That said, I have read a lot of self-help books written by others in my lifetime. Which only adds to my point: nowadays everyone has an easy access to thousands books and hundreds thousands articles and Youtube videos explaining how to beat an addiction. There is no excuse for not doing that. If you need Jordan Peterson to quit drinking, then, by all means, buy his books, read his articles and watch his videos - but actually do that; do not just talk about that. Watch what he has to say and follow his advice. Everyone can do that; there is no magic skill required for it.

    That some people do not use these tools is entirely on them. My dad has accepted full responsibility for his failings. As for my granddad, he was a who did not like to think much or reflect on his actions. Still, he lived for nearly 80 years, while most people do not last past 40 with his lifestyle. The guy was a freak of nature genetics-wise, and it took literally liters of pure vodka every day for months to take him down.
    Maybe their will was not as strong as it should be. Regardless, they have no one to blame for what happened to them, but themselves - and no one else has a moral duty to help them, when they are not helping themselves.

    I do not believe in these "genetic predispositions" determining anything. We all have control over our actions, regardless of how tempted we may be to take a certain action. Some things are very-very hard for me to do, but I still do them, because I understand the consequences of not doing them. Some do not, or do not like to think about it - and they reap what they sow.

    Other people's problems become mine when they start infringing on my basic rights. When they take action that harms me, then they are a problem.
    It is easy to become paranoid and start taking preventive actions all over the place - but history shows that this ends up in totalitarianism. And even when it does not, it still ends up in a much less free society.

    Someone wise once said that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, end up losing both. Nothing I know from history or basic logic suggests that this is not true.

    If people are irresponsible, then even more so regulations should not be instituted. When an irresponsible person decides what rights who has left, what happens? Nothing good.
    I have not read your abortion argument yet. What thread was it in?

    And just to be clear, I am not saying that all preventive regulations are terrible (well, they are, but not as much as most of them). However, I have not seen proper arguments in support of them in this thread, ones that do not have awful implications and lead to a lot of hypocrisy and double-standards. 
    I could respect it if people who were in support of outlawing hard drugs, also were in support of outlawing drinking, smoking, light drugs, cars, dams and so on. I would disagree with them, but I could respect their position. As it is though, people take these stances very selectively, depending on their political leaning, instead of taking a principled stance and taking it to its logical end.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Although my assumption about what helped you alleviate your video game addiction was wrong, It still seems to me that your attitude toward self betterment and lifelong learning may have been a critical factor in your path out of addiction, a trait that is somewhat uncommon, although I would put it on a spectrum with a normal distribution.

    There are people who, either for a lack of knowledge or a bad attitude can not take control of themselves and their situation, unless otherwise prompted or specifically instructed to do so. These are the types who have a job they hate but make no effort to get the qualifications needed for a better one, the people who don't routinely work out, or who eat fast food often. The fact that fast food chains are doing so well is strong evidence of my point. Everyone knows it is bad for you, but few cut it from their lives because it is deliberately created to invoke strong survival responses, something we are genetically predisposed to.

    Belief in genetic tenancies to be more likely to be addicted have been confirmed though multiple studies, and although this doesn't automatically mean that someone who is likely to be an addict can not break the addiction, it does mean that for that individual it will be significantly harder. These individuals are disadvantaged in a society that makes addictive substances (including fast food, gambling, video games, sex, and alcohol ) readily available.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3506170/

    "Evidence from family, adoption, and twin studies converges on the relevance of genetic factors in the development of addictions including SUDs and gambling.713 Weighted mean heritabilities for addictions computed from several studies of large cohorts of twins are shown in Fig. 1.14 Heritability is lowest for hallucinogens (0.39) and highest for cocaine (0.72)."

    So now that the science is on the table, the critical portion of my argument, which I feel you have not addressed, is:

    Does making dangerous and highly addictive substances legal and readily available infringe on the basic rights of individuals who have a genetic predisposition for addiction?

    I think the answer, is a hard yes!

    Specifically, this is because their would be a loss of opportunity for those individuals who do get addicted easily, because they would have on average a higher financial overhead to support their habit. This would lead to a situation were it would be more difficult for addiction prone individuals to become financially productive. This disadvantage would have macroscopic effects, even if the individual effects were subtle. Therefore, we should remove these things from society until we are either able to remove the disadvantage through technological development, (i.e. create drugs that are not addictive with same effects, or remove genetic predisposition to addiction)

    The secret to instituting regulations that fight irresponsibility is to make the law a product of the average distribution of the decisions of the individuals that would be beholden to those regulations. This is a fancy way of saying democracy. If a majority agree that something is dangerous, and they agree that it shouldn't be allowed then they should make that thing illegal. That way there is no worrying about an irresponsible individual ruining everything for responsible people.

    I don't think the slippery slope fallacy you present makes any sense outside of the fact that it is already a fallacy. These substances are already illegal, so saying that adding restriction that currently exist will somehow give the state too much power is refutable based on the fact that this is not recognized as a cause for concentration of government power.

    I'm not sure where I originally posted this on abortion, but I can sum it up in this info-graphic, which thus far has been the only way for me to explain it to people who usually just get dogmatic and close minded before realizing this is a secret third option.


    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Why is khat even banned anyway?
  • No. I don’t think that we should legalise all drugs. I personally think that we should be able to legalise marijuana but that’s because it’s not particularly dangerous. I think that we need to press people to not use drugs at all as it is not a good thing to do.
  • Why are drugs legislated?

    A drug is not illegal a drug is found or questioned to be used illegally.

    How is it believed to be used illegally is by an abuse that is presenting itself in a physical harm, or economic harm. This harm can be by the people or even a law.

    In Marijuana the law has some serious basic issues that come into question. First it is not the ownership of marijuana that justifies any legal restriction as it is those law which pose restriction which increase cost in economic and damage by formation of medical monopolies.

    The greatest threat as a united state all drugs face is pollution. Marijuana is a pollutant that has a specific concern as the pollutants of worry can be spread in the air.

  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  


    That table you made is just an opinion. 
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 No, it's 9 distinct opinions. It's also beyond the scope of this thread, I only posted it here for convenience because @MayCaesar ; asked. It is to show a means of thinking about political policies that is relatively rare in the modern era, the point being to be proactive rather than reactive.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 No, it's 9 distinct opinions. It's also beyond the scope of this thread, I only posted it here for convenience because @MayCaesar ; asked. It is to show a means of thinking about political policies that is relatively rare in the modern era, the point being to be proactive rather than reactive.
    What I mean is that it's just an opinion that pro-life and pro-choice behaviours should never be allowed to happen. That's just someone's opinion, be it yours or not. Also, what does it have to do with the topic of this debate?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If you want the full context, read the dialogue between myself and @MayCaesar, I will give the TL;DR here:

    If someone gets pregnant who doesn't want to be, be that through fault or luck, they will be forced into an immoral situation regardless of their stance on abortion, because both pro-life and pro-choice carry moral detractors. Therefore both stances are wrong and the only appropriate action is to be proactive and never allow unwanted pregnancies to happen, and this can be accomplished through the development of technology (such as male equivalent birth control) and education.

    This is analogous to to the legalization of drugs, where we should prevent people from getting hooked on drugs in the first place, either by allowing safe alternatives to exist, removing genetic addiction potential from humans, educating the public of the dangers of potential legal gateway drugs like Oxycontin, or preventing access to them altogether.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RheannaSaloRheannaSalo 2 Pts   -  
    qwerrty said:
    Should we legalize every drug or at least some version of every drug? 
    There are numerous benefits, such as: 
    Lots of drug cartels and gangs that rely on drug money could be put out of business. It will be a new source of tax revenue. It will destigmatize drug use and help people who are addicted (could create safe injection sites) and making drugs much safer when people use them because they come from a regulated business (or make it for free if you go to an injection site). 
    Should they just be decriminalized? 
    Should only somelt be made legal? 
    Should they stay how they are now?
    No.  I understand why some drugs could be legalized due to medical prescription but other drugs shouldn't.  Specific drugs that can cause addiction and only addiction shouldn't be legalized because addiction can cause death, brain problems and other environmental issues.  Overall drug use and addiction is becoming a county-wide problem that can be solved if some drugs were illegalized.  
  • @RheannaSalo ;
    Here the problem......
    Drugs that are prescribed are still addicting...
    Drugs are a controlled substance and medical prescriptions are often the preferred method of control. This process is not always Constitutional as a united state. 
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 If you want the full context, read the dialogue between myself and @MayCaesar, I will give the TL;DR here:

    If someone gets pregnant who doesn't want to be, be that through fault or luck, they will be forced into an immoral situation regardless of their stance on abortion, because both pro-life and pro-choice carry moral detractors. Therefore both stances are wrong and the only appropriate action is to be proactive and never allow unwanted pregnancies to happen, and this can be accomplished through the development of technology (such as male equivalent birth control) and education.

    This is analogous to to the legalization of drugs, where we should prevent people from getting hooked on drugs in the first place, either by allowing safe alternatives to exist, removing genetic addiction potential from humans, educating the public of the dangers of potential legal gateway drugs like Oxycontin, or preventing access to them altogether.
    I now understand your argument, but I do not agree with it.
    I do not think it would ever be possible to stop people from getting addicted to drugs altogether. There are always people who wish to illegally profit from selling drugs, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, from stopping them.
    I also think that all drugs that are currently legal should remain legal. Although opioid painkillers suck as OxyContin have some side effects and can be addictive, it is up to your GP to prescribe them, and if it is the best drug to help with the pain, then it is justified for the GP to prescribe that drug.
    I do not think we should ever genetically engineer humans. There are already laws passed against genetic engineering with humans, and it could be very dangerous. Once humans have been genetically engineered, there is no way to remove those modified genes from the gene pool.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Happy_Killbot

    Genetic engineering (on humans) and eugenics are the language of misanthropy. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the best method for human genetics to be successful is to allow genetic diversity rein supreme. Human decisions on what genes are "unsatisfactory" can only be subjectively based choices at best, but profoundly misinformed most of the time. This is made especially true because we cannot see into the future which would be the only effective manner to make an informed decision on the success of genes.

    Eugenics is really just a tool for population control, and stems from the misinformed idea that we can decide whose life is worth living and whose life is destructive to the human genome. When we strip the layers of the process needed in making such a decision, we realize it's only based on who we like, and who we dislike, and it's nothing more. Addiction is a sad circumstance for everybody, and it does effective everybody, but does that really render the addicts life useless, and not worth living? Your argument about physically or mentally handicapped children is not scientific in the least, so please stop portraying your stance as such. When we do quick search into eugenics, we learn just as quickly that it is considered a pseudo-science, especially by geneticists. 

    Your argument that you're somehow a "libertarian" is equally unscientific and baseless. Yours is an appeal to the outdated "science" of the nazis, not informed libertarians. This is made even more true because of the fact that libertarians believe all human life has value. I am a left leaning libertarian, and it makes me vommit in my mouth to think that I could be categorized in the same political philosophical group as you. I find much solice in the fact that you have totally mischaracterized yourself, and I will ask that you stop calling yourself a libertarian, because you're nothing less than a fascist. Although there may not be genes or lives worth getting rid of, there certainly are philosophies that are, and yours tops the list. Yours is simple disinformation, not just a misinformed opinion. So for the sake of having a constructive discussion by more informed debaters, kindly please!!!!                        
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @piloteer Who is talking about eugenics?

    You don't understand my argument at all.

    I'm using this as a grounds to say that as long as some people are genetically disadvantaged i.e, more prone to addiction due to genetic characteristics, that producing a societal environment is not conducive to their success.

    We wouldn't blame people for being unable to open doors if we put every door knob at the top where only the tallest could reach it, and then claim that it is their fault they are unable to open the door, likewise we shouldn't allow addictive substances into a society that would do the same thing.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 There are a plethora of single-gene disorders that we will have the technology to completely eliminate within a decade. By removing these genetic abnormalities from the population, we can increase the life span and well being of hundreds of thousands of people.

    By deliberately outlawing this, we are basically saying that all these people need to suffer.

    In some situations, genetically engineering people is not the way you might imagine it. For example, in Nordic countries it is not uncommon for mothers to abort babies with known genetic abnormalities such as down syndrome. There is nothing illegal about this, even in the US where abortion is legal.

    The technology needed to remove add or remove genes is the same as what is used to remove them. While there are dangers and difficulties associated with doing so, nature can technically do this all on it's own anyways.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @Happy_Killbot

    I'm not arguing that all drugs should be legal. I would make an argument against legalizing all drugs, but then I would be placed in with the likes of misinformed people who use terms like "genetically disadvantaged", even though the concept of such is a social construction, not a scientific term (or an outdated scientific term). It is you who is talking about eugenics and you have espoused it's merits on this thread more than once, like for instance when you said we should abort "genetically disadvantaged" children. Just for $hits and giggles, what exactly is your definition of "genetically disadvantaged"? 

    There is no such thing as "genetically disadvantaged", but you make it painfully clear that there is such a thing as intellectually and morally disadvantaged.      
  • @piloteer ;
    All drugs are legal and we prove them illegal through governing set in law. Some where chemicals however remain personal property as medications. The issue as obstacle by united State constitution is that not all drugs are simply illegal by ownership, or by there possession and creation, as claimed to be for those who are criminally charge, making them so with law is placing the law in a Untied State with crime and the enforcing of constitution is what an officer of law performs.

    There is extremely high probability of malpractice taking effect when the practice of civil law redirects enforcement of united State Constitutional separation by changing it with enforcing law.

    @Happy_Killbot ;
    Pregnancy abortion is not legal it is unprosecuted or then prosecuted to establish crime by separation of right. Female specific amputation is not illegal in a united state it, it is a constitutional right, then to be proven illegal outside its united state.
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1712 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 There are a plethora of single-gene disorders that we will have the technology to completely eliminate within a decade. By removing these genetic abnormalities from the population, we can increase the life span and well being of hundreds of thousands of people.

    By deliberately outlawing this, we are basically saying that all these people need to suffer.

    In some situations, genetically engineering people is not the way you might imagine it. For example, in Nordic countries it is not uncommon for mothers to abort babies with known genetic abnormalities such as down syndrome. There is nothing illegal about this, even in the US where abortion is legal.

    The technology needed to remove add or remove genes is the same as what is used to remove them. While there are dangers and difficulties associated with doing so, nature can technically do this all on it's own anyways.
    Nature does it over many thousands of years. Humans would be doing it in a matter of minutes, meaning we would have control of what previously only nature could do. This seems very dangerous to me. After we have modified a gene, there is no going back. It is far too risky to take control of what nature has been doing since the start of life. It is very dangerous to do anything to human genes until we are absolutely certain that the dangers have eliminated it. 


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @piloteer Like it or hate it, genetic characteristics pervade all aspects of human existence, and this is a scientific fact that is only debatable by those who deny reality. Sometimes people are born with genetic traits that although highly useful in nature, are not very useful in our modern world.

    Take metabolic rate for instance. A slow metabolism will help a hunter gatherer go longer without need for food, but in our modern world it is a burden for those who do not work out often. That is what I mean by "genetically disadvantaged" It is the situation that is the disadvantage to genetics that just are, and through science we could change those genes to produce individuals who will not grow up with abnormalities.

    The straw man fallacies you created have nothing to do with the argument I am making. Stop jumping to conclusions.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473 No, it's more complex than that. Genetic information can change in just a few years, even within a human lifetime. In fact, genetic mutations can change within a human beings cells.

    We call this cancer.

    Cancer is essentially individual cells that have lost the ability to die after several genetic mutations have occurred. Most mutations result in the cells dying but they are rapidly replaced so it matters little. Sometimes the cells survive, reproduce and the errors are carried in the division. If the cells still survive and this process repeats enough times, the cells can become malignant and turn into cancer cells.

    Evolution is both a long, slow process and a fast process. Think about it like the stock market. On any given day, the market will be all over the place and can move extraordinarily fast, but if you zoom out you will be able to see clear trends emerge.

    For some things, like single-gene disorders we can be sure of safety because, well, the overwhelming majority of people do not have the mutation. Putting a halt to this type of research can only prevent scientists from developing these technologies and potentially saving lives.

    We are human beings, we have taken control of nature at every step since the dawn of civilization. We do not go gently into that good night.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch