Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: NO

Well, I wouldn't put them in jails but a small fine would do.So your gonna fine them for it? Here, you consumed a substance I don't like, $500 now!So the drug dealers are punching us in the face by operating an illegal plantation and poisoning our citizens. How are we going to fight this?Wait, I know! To stop them from selling drugs and poison to our citizens... we will start sellings drugs and poison to our citizens ourselves, but for far less money. We cut off their supply and they'll go out of business by not arresting them but by giving them competition.Well, I was talking about weed and if you consider that "poison" the, we have other issues. But anyway, what you seem not to understand is that crime can't fund its self, drugs are big money especially when they are illegal because it makes it a 100% criminal market. So then the choice is yours, you can have these people buying it drug cartles and the money goes to the cartels. Now go look at what the cartels are currently doing, this is the result of illegal drugs, its like giving organized crime a free way to fund everything they do. If it was grown and made here legally it would 1. be cheaper because since weed is illegal the price is extremely inflated 2. it would be controlled 3. it would stop funding crime 4. people would stop dying over a drug war.You did not answer my question - what liberties am I taking away from you by being naked?And what you're advocating here is an apartheid policy. If your solution to nudism is to make nudist and non-nudist zones, why don't we apply the same for gays? Lets make gay-zones and non-gay zones. Might as well appease all the racists as well and bring back white pools and non-white pools. Now you have a community where everyone can be happy... well except for those who want mixed pools, who want nudists to get along with non-nudists and people who want gays to get along with non-gays.Being gay is something you can not choose, you can choose to be naked or not, its the same thing with smoking you have smoking and non-smoking areas. We would have a community that would make everyone happy if you would quit thinking that someone smoking was taking away your liberties.Of course anti-murder laws decrease the amount of murders being done. It's because people do not want to get into trouble. However, if someone sincerely wanted to murder someone, no laws would stop him from doing so.Murder is a totally different issue than drugs, because with the whole "Getting in trouble thing" its not that hard to get caught with drugs, its rather easy to get caught with murder.The same applies to drugs. As long as they are illegal, people are fearful about purchasing or doing them because nobody wants the police to knock on their door with a joint in their mouth. Or the DEA to crack down on a guy while he's buying some crack from a street-hoodlum.Vec, have you ever seen any illegal drugs, ever? Drugs are very small most of the time and you can take them somewhere were no one will see, don't try and compare it to murder because the same tactic doesn't apply.These laws do not stop drug use, but they prevent and decrease it. Legally regulating drugs just makes them even more easier to get, except now you don't have to worry about any negative legal consequences.Well first off why should you have to worry about legal consequences? SHould I be worried that I'm going to be arrested for enjoying myself? Secondly, its not easier because its already really easy, you meet some shady gay he says something you say something and then congrats you bought some.And trust me, while alchohol is regulated - it doesn't stop underage kids from getting a hold of it.No it doesn't, but its much harder for a teen in high school to get booze than weed , LSD or shrooms.It doesn't matter ultimately who asks who to stop. Whether I ask him or he asks me - one of us will encroach on another person's liberty.Alright, since you think that having to step back from someone you don't like is taking away more of your liberties than you asking him to stop smoking. Here, how about you both take 1 step back and get out a ruler so you both take the exact amount distance back.And that's why I want you to answer this question - how do you measure what liberty is more important than the other?If you truely consider not having to take a step back or ask the smoker to be a more important/bigger liberty than them being allowed to smoke without the threat of the police kicking in the door than you have some problems.Look.. this is just so bizarre.So only sex qualifies as rape? So if a guy sticks his dick in a mare's vagina - it's rape. But if a guy sticks a pipe in a mare's vagina and pumps semen into her womb to ensure quality breeding - that's not rape, oh no! That's what we call sexual harassment.Actually, yes, that is what its called. Rape is forced sex, sexual harassment is harassing someone sexually (as the title shows)Lets apply the same thing to humans. A person cannot be convicted of rape because he forcefully fingered a woman and grabbed her boobs. However, he can be convicted of sexual harassment. Or did your sex limitation only apply to animals and if so, than why?Again yes, that is how it works. If he kidnapped her than he's still gonna get the book thrown at him but if you just grab someone's book or put your hand down their pants its sexual assault. Again, rape is forced sex and incase you didn't notice grabbing someone's boobs is not sex.Sure, they are a potential users. But the laws will ensure that most of them will remain to only be potential and not actual users. Nobody wants drug use on their permanent record, especially ones with career ambitions.Holy shit! Alright, I'm sorry but your really oblivious to what goes on, almost all people who wanted to try drugs try them. Why? Because there available and hard to get caught with. And thats anouther thing, why should someone have their career ruined because they smoked up? Thats stupid.Legalizing drugs will make it accesible and first and foremost - it makes drugs cheap. That's the prime argument for fighting illegal drug profiteering. If you give the people cheap and legal drugs that are just as potent, the cartels will lose the profit they make now and have to lower their price or create some niche drugs just to stay in competition.No the argument is that someone besides organized crime should make them and were sick of seeing so many people being killed and so much money being wasted on this pointless "War on drugs"This is just liberal wishful thinking. You haven't given me any convincing reasons as to why the usage won't increase.1. I'm a Libertarian 2. I have presented you with many reasons, you should really listen to more Milton Friedman instead of "This is your brain, this is drugs, this is your brain on drugs" And if people were sincerely concerned with getting help, they wouldn't care about the legal implications. You would expect me to believe that people will continue to do drugs because they're afraid that if they go and try to break their addiction by seeking help - they would be arrested? So they would just rather keep on doing drugs than seek help? Please...Then let me ask you, why does this happen so often? With hard drugs you can get thrown in jail for possession, so a heroin addict wouldn't want to go get help at risk of being thrown in prison.Yeah, they don't have much problem. But you don't want them to have any problems at all it seems.Legalizing drugs will make it even more simpler than it currently is. And cheaper.How dare these people enjoy themselves, how dare they.Your drug war is making thinks pretty simple for Mexican families, one day they have a family, the next day half of them are dead, simple. Without them being illegal this mass cash flow would not being to these cartels.