Agreeing on the Role of the Government...

[ajmorgan25]

For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?

No, but they should legalize them

And if it endangers the lives of others?

If someone injures/kills someone on a drug, the person should have the same legal consequences as if they killed someone off the drug. Driving on an impairing drug is a different story though.

Well obviously they would receive the same sort of punishment. The point is when the drug causes danger to others.

 

[ChrisBird]

For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?

No, but they should legalize them

And if it endangers the lives of others?

If someone injures/kills someone on a drug, the person should have the same legal consequences as if they killed someone off the drug. Driving on an impairing drug is a different story though.

Well obviously they would receive the same sort of punishment. The point is when the drug causes danger to others.

If you mean by doing the drug, you are going to hurt someone, that is not true at all.

Doing the drug harms nothing but yourself, and then going out, while under the influence of drugs and killing someone is your choice (and a very stupid one I might add.) If you know doing something will cause you to go do something dumb, you should be smart enough not to do it. And not need the government to hold your hand because you can't do it yourself.

 

[EmersonHerrmann]

May I politely copy and paste the ruled defines in the sticky for the Off-Topic Discussion forum.

"Feel free to post all non-cube related stuff in this forum, just keep it clean."

And also point out the terms "Off-Topic Discussion"

I am not trying to start a debate, but rather get peoples opinions on the role of government.

He is just saying that (judging from his past experiences) that this often does not turn out well. He does not mean it literally.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

For some people, only illegal drugs make them happy, so should the government provide that?

No, but they should legalize them

And if it endangers the lives of others?

If someone injures/kills someone on a drug, the person should have the same legal consequences as if they killed someone off the drug. Driving on an impairing drug is a different story though.

Well obviously they would receive the same sort of punishment. The point is when the drug causes danger to others.

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. If you mean a drug that causes people to get extremely violent, then there really needs to be a point where we don't blame the drug but we blame the person. If you take a drug knowing that it will get increase your testosterone levels to a point where you are going to break anything that you can, it's really your fault that you took it in the first place, and you should be put on trial for those crimes in the same way that you would if you did the crimes off the drug.

 

[miniGOINGS]

In Canada, it seems like each party has a different perspective of what the government should control/change, which ends up being the main problem itself.

Thats exactly what I said about the USA in my main post.

Mhm, I was just clarifying that this seems to be the point in Canada as well as the States and probably every other country out there.

 

[ajmorgan25]

@MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't make you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.

@EthanRosen: I have never said that a person that commits a crime under the influence of a drug should be put under trial differently than a person who committed the same crime without being under the influence of the drug. I have no idea where you are getting that from. What I'm saying is that a drug can influence an individual to act in a very irresponsible manner and in some cases, can endanger other innocent people. For this reason, many drugs that can provoke such behavior are outlawed or restricted.

 

[Ethan Rosen]

People who take a drug knowing that it will influence them to commit a felony are already acting an a very irresponsible manner. IT shouldn't take a law to stop a person from being reckless, because if you look at any high school or even a lot of middle schools in America, you can see that the law doesn't really stop anything. What should stop people from acting in a reckless manner is knowing that certain drugs will make someone more likely to harm someone and destroy property.

 

[anythingtwisty]

Safe= Able to live a normal life without fear of shoddily built construction, etc., that may endanger someone. Also includes maniacs with firearms.

Secure= Able to depend on unchanging variables in the outside world (job, etc.).

Equal= Not exposed to prejudice or discrimination of ANY kind. This includes age, gender, race, nationality, beliefs, and many others that I have not listed.

Happy= Able to enjoy yourself and live life to the fullest.

 

[ChrisBird]

Safe= Able to live a normal life without fear of shoddily built construction, etc., that may endanger someone. Also includes maniacs with firearms.

Secure= Able to depend on unchanging variables in the outside world (job, etc.).

Equal= Not exposed to prejudice or discrimination of ANY kind. This includes age, gender, race, nationality, beliefs, and many others that I have not listed.

Happy= Able to enjoy yourself and live life to the fullest.

And how do you propose the government ensure this?

 

[anythingtwisty]

Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep.

 

[ajmorgan25]

Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep.

Switzerland seems to be doing fine and it requires that males keep fully automatic rifles at home.

And despite what people think, there's no such thing as free healthcare.

 

[Kyle Barry]

"Regulations, such as banning firearms, having well-paid safety inspectors, free healthcare, insurance overhaul, and many others that I will name later after I get some sleep."

- Well, as proven by 100s of tests, banning firearms is a great way to restrict our freedoms, while raising violent crime and homicides. Free healthcare, of course does not exist, and will drastically halt the advancement of healthcare quality, along with many other downfalls. Forcing people to spend their money on government programs, which are always inefficient, expensive, and usually useless, seems absurd. If we want it, we can put money towards it, if we don't, we won't. End of story. The government isn't the moral voice that tells us what is ethically necessary for us to pay for.

As to your Ayn Rand comment...She is brilliant, an exceptional writer, and is a genius of a philosopher.

 

[Hadley4000]

@MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't make you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.

Some drugs are known to cause violent behavior like that(Meth, PCP), so the reasonable answer is to keep those illegal. Marijuana on the other hand, you just have to worry about choking on Cheetos.

 

[ajmorgan25]

@MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't make you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.

Some drugs are known to cause violent behavior like that(Meth, PCP), so the reasonable answer is to keep those illegal. Marijuana on the other hand, you just have to worry about choking on Cheetos.

Didn't mean for my post to apply to all drugs. Some deserve it, some don't. But, you seem to get my point.

 

[Kian]

@MonkeyDude1313: Obviously the drug doesn't make you go out and endanger other people. The fact is that they contribute to actions that endanger other people and when it comes to providing general security, many people think they should be outlawed.

Some drugs are known to cause violent behavior like that(Meth, PCP), so the reasonable answer is to keep those illegal. Marijuana on the other hand, you just have to worry about choking on Cheetos.

Didn't mean for my post to apply to all drugs. Some deserve it, some don't. But, you seem to get my point.

Of course, but people do damaging (and even deadly things) when they drink alcohol, too. Does that mean we should ban that, as well? Drivers that don't get enough sleep are more prone to accidents. Should we mandate a minimum sleep time? Obviously we can't be the parents of a nation.

Basically, you can look at the drug war two ways. Either in terms of rights or in terms of practicality. I would defer to the former by they are both reasonable.

Basically, I think telling anyone what to do with their own body short of harming others is patently absurd. Obviously people will do dangerous things, and they should be punished for them, but I don't think it should matter to the law WHY they did them. I think that's silly (I have the same feeling on "hate" crimes, which make absolutely no sense when you really think about how silly it is to try to use what bad reason someone used to commit a crime. If the crime is the same, then punishment should be the same.)

But, even if you're looking at this practically, it's silly to try the war on drugs anymore. It has woefully failed in ridding our nation of drugs to the point where drug use is far higher then it was when the "war on drugs" began in the early 70s. It's an impossible fight that keeps law enforcement from dealing with crimes against people, helps to create an unbelievably dangerous underground, wastes a ridiculous amount of money, and makes the usage of these drugs far less safe then if it was in the open and you could trust that the E you bought from Walgreens wasn't cut with something that was even more dangerous.

Basically, trying to keep people from doing drugs is impossible, and I see no good reason to keep this up. Let's get real, what does making drugs illegal in the US do? All it does is waste a lot, it sure as hell doesn't prevent anyone from doing them. I know almost everyone could get their hands on pretty much anything really quickly.

I don't do drugs. Hell, I don't even drink and well more than of age, but this garbage has got to go.