Laws Should Never Limit Personal Choices that have Little Impact on other Individuals

Almost everything policy (or lack thereof) in the world has pros and cons. The question is if the pros significantly outweigh the cons. My argument extends that belief to state that lawmakers should also consider whether the action has the has the resonable potential to harm others (specifically, those who aren"t choosing to make that action). For example, I should have every right to invest my personal money into the risky stock market assuming that money doesn't belong to anyone else. However, to invest money that belongs to myself and my partner (without her knowledge) puts potentially unwanted risk on an individual outside of the decision-making process. The first few paragraphs of my opponent"s argument center around taxation, which he seems adamantly opposed to since it violates his "economic freedoms". If someone"s looking to avoid taxation, they should move to Somalia, since it represents one of the last places you can live without paying some form of taxes. Yes, taxes are necessary. Whether there"re used to redistribute wealth through social programs is another story and would justify a whole other debate. The second half of my opponent"s argument focused on marijuana usage and the effects it has on its users. The heart of his premise is that 9% of pot smokers become dependent and addition is associated with behaviors that seriously affect the individuals around them. Due to this 9%, he believes we need blanket protection by law to protect us from our own decisions. Many things are wrong with this idea. First, that idea would indicate that we should ban all marriages in the US because over half end in divorce. The reason we don"t do that is because we recognize that people deserve certain freedoms even if their decisions may end badly. The 9% statement fails to mention 91% of people who use the drug (many of them regularly) who never become addicted. Obviously, those non-addicted users are choosing to smoke pot because of the personal benefits associated with it. Let compare that to alcohol which currently has 140 million dependent users and accounts for 5% of all deaths between the ages of 15-29. In 2013 alone, alcohol use disorders resulted in 139,000 deaths. Deaths solely attribute to safe marijuana usage are close to 0. It seems like my opponent would support banning alcohol, cigarettes, cars, airplanes, and fried chicken since they are exponentially more dangerous that safe marijuana usage. We should use a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the pros significantly outweigh the cons and who are the main actors affected by the decision (the decision-makers or bystanders). Let"s look at gay marriage. Two individuals are jointly making the choice to wed because they ultimately believe it will make them happier. Obviously, we can"t predict whether the marriage will be successful or not, but we should recognize that the choice is theirs to make. They are the main beneficiaries or victims of this choice. On average, their friends and family will be happy for them, thereby spreading the positive effects of this choice. While one might argue that other community members may feel discomfort at their choice, I would remind them that the smell of gasoline makes most people uncomfortable, but we accept the smell because we recognize the benefits associated with its usage. Regarding gay marriage, the potential happiness gained between the two individuals greatly outweighs the slight discomfort felt by other people, thereby making the outward negative effects relatively small. Unless other prominent negative effects can be tied to gay marriage, you can"t justify banning gay marriage without justifying the elimination of heterosexual marriage as well. Finally, doctor-assisted suicide needs to be considered. I believe that individuals deserve the right to end their own lives if they have a terminal illness which makes the remainder of their lives very painful. Currently, doctors in the 45/50 states in America can lose their licenses and face criminal charges if they help a patient end their own life. Due to this fact, thousands of people are forced to endure (sometimes unimaginable) agony until their last painful breath. The choice to die, especially when there is little hope for a brighter future, should be the sole decision of the patient or the person legally designated to make that decision. The decision-maker is the primary beneficiary of their own decision and the State should not have the right to force them to endure consistent pain and suffering until their death. http://www.who.int... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.drugwarfacts.org...