Debate: ARE YOU AGAINST SMOKING?
Side: YES

When I say nudity I don't mean you can go everywhere naked, I'm refering to nude beaches and nudist camps, nothing wrong with those.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.Nudism doesn't hurt anyone, people just don't like it. But so what? The majority in the US doesn't like homosexuality either but they're expected to put up with it and tolerate it. So if you don't like nudism, well too bad then. Put up with it or leave, they're not hurting you in any way.Than ask them to take a step back, don't tell the police to put them in jail for smoking. Problem solved.Well, I wouldn't put them in jails but a small fine would do.Because it does, doesn't stop all of them, but reduces them. If you kill someone there is a shit ton of evidence left behind most of the time and people tend to notice when people go missing. When someone sells you a gram of whatever in an alley and then you go home and use it, no one notices.When drugs are illegal and aren't regulated they are still vastly used. A drug dealer doesn't care about your health, doesn't care about your age doesn't care about you at all and there absolutley no consequences if he/she cheats you, sells your something that is cut or sells to a minor. When drugs are regulated, this tends to go away, I mean for fucks sake its easier for someone under 18 to buy weed the beer.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.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. 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. People who were afraid to go to jail or to get on the bad side of the mafia can now gleefully buy ice cream and two grams of cocaine every time they go to a gas station for gas and snacks.And trust me, while alchohol is regulated - it doesn't stop underage kids from getting a hold of it. It's so incredibly easy and cheap whereas during the times of Capone, any kid who even had a single beer was the top dog of his street. Why? Because kids, first of all, didn't have the insane cash that was required to get the beer in the first place and secondly - to get alchohol you actually needed to have connections - things that most 14 year olds did not have.Same thing with other drugs, especially the Mexican cartels, 70% of their income comes from weed, so that would mean 70% less memebers, 70% less guns and 70% less people killed.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.Ask him to move or keep it down, most park performers play guitar, rather quite instrument in the park, you can barley even hear them if your a few yards away. Your argument seems to be that you not being able to get rid of things you don't like is an attack on your liberties but telling someone they can't do what they like is not.Ask him to move or keep it down, most park performers play guitar, rather quite instrument in the park, you can barley even hear them if your a few yards away. Your argument seems to be that you not being able to get rid of things you don't like is an attack on your liberties but telling someone they can't do what they like is not.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.And that's why I want you to answer this question - how do you measure what liberty is more important than the other?Thats different, your neighbors have their own property and if your blasting music that loud at 2 am thats disturbing the peace, playing music in the park is not.I'm not disturbing the peace, I'm just exercising my liberty to play music. So my liberty to play music in my home is less important than someone else's liberty for a quiet home? I know all of this, but sex with an animal is rape. And let me clarify something a forced handjob is not rape, its sexual harassment, rape is forced sex. A handjob is not sex.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. 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?Anyone with a reasonable mind can see that if we are forcefully inserting objects into someone's vagina for the purpose of artifically inseminating them or if a guy forcefully fingers a woman - that this has already crossed the lines of sexual harassment and qualifies as rape - sexual contact without consent.Everyone is a potential user already, especially minors. You ever go to high school? Schools are flooded with dealers, you can buy weed really cheap and really easy almost anywhere so having it be illegal doesn't make anynone some how immune to it. Anouther thing, when you make a product like drugs illegal criminals will always get involved your basically saying "hey criminals, heres a market you can monopolize"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.And I don't know what schools you go to, but here we don't have drug dealers and whereever drugs are sold, they're not cheap - unless you had the luck of growing up in an upper-middle class family.Sure, currently criminal organizations have the monopoly on drugs but what's wrong with it? Because they're illegal, they're expensive and a person also needs to have connections with the underground to get them.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.The prices will go down and drugs will be far easier to get. And people who wanted to try drugs but were afraid because of legal implications or who didn't want to associate with criminals - they no longer have these problems.There won't be more addicts and when someone who knows a drug is illegal and they can be thrown in jail for it the last thing they want is help out of fear of being arrested.This is just liberal wishful thinking. You haven't given me any convincing reasons as to why the usage won't increase. 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...For some, the support of friends and going cold turkey is enough. And if there was sincere concern for their health, then they would give themselves in and not go visit Martinez for another batch of crack.They already don't have a problem, thats why there getting alot of drugs, you think if they couldn't afford them that they would be addicts? If you can't afford drugs you can't use drugs and there sure as hell using them.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.