Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition/point-counterpoint

message: These are the main points people make for drug prohibition, and counter-points made by people against it: 
===Immoral===
*A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by much of the population.
**The charge of "immorality" is subjective, and can be defined differently according to different perspectives and beliefs, all of which may be valid. Thus, with such conflicting views, a law based on "morality" cannot be fairly applied to any population.
***This is not entirely true.  Murder is certainly immoral, and based on the set of "morality" that most humans share.  There is no truly objective (i.e., not based on morality) way to determine if murder or anything else is 'right' or 'wrong.'
****Murder is, by definition, an unjust (or "immoral") killing.  There are a vast array of ways to kill someone that are not considered immoral, including defense of self, others, and property.  Saying that murder is immoral is a tautology.
****Murder is prohibited because it directly violates the rights of another person. Drug use does not. Morality is not the basis of laws against murder, theft, and rape, rights are.
*****Morality is the basis of all laws. The claim that "rights" are the basis for all laws makes sense only if you also make the claim that it is immoral to violate another's rights. Think of it this way: Why is murder illegal? Because it is wrong. What about it makes it "wrong"? Well, nothing, really, just our innate moral sense that it should be wrong. There's really no logical reason to make murder illegal. Murder is only wrong from a moralistic point of view.
******The idea that morality is inherently the basis of all laws, as expressed above, is overly simplistic. Violating another's rights should not be restricted because such is immoral. Upholding another's rights should be performed because of a given governmental system's agreement in doing so and stated commitment to equal support of such rights.
*****Drug use falls into the class of victimless crimes, such as prostitution; the only victim is oneself, as it is with alcohol use. Declaring these drugs immoral and others not is the greatest form of hypocrisy.
******Drugs are not a "victimless crime," unless you don't consider Phil Hartman to be a victim. Even if they were, this would still not be an argument for making them legal.
*******"The reasons for the murder/suicide are unknown, although friends of the Hartmans speculated in the press that the combination of their marriage problems and Brynn's drug addictions probably contributed" is stated in the Phil Hartman wikipedia article quite clearly. However, even if Byrnn Hartman's drug addiction was decidedly a contributing factor in her committing murder, it is clearly known that Phil Hartman was killed with a bullet, not a drug.
********Arguing that the primary harbinger of a murder (in this case, drug abuse) should not be condemned because its effects were indirect is at best illogical, and at worst highly irresponsible. As murder is universally condemned, it is only logical for a society to look for ways in which murders can be prevented, or at least, minimized. It is for this exact reason that certain acts (such as drunk driving) and possession of certain paraphernalia (such as deadly explosives, various drugs) are outlawed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.4.6 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Point-counterpoint for drug prohibition

message: *A state cannot tolerate or be involved with the distribution of substances the use of which is considered immoral by much of the population.
**The charge of "immorality" is subjective, and can be defined differently according to different perspectives and beliefs, all of which may be valid. Thus, with such conflicting views, a law based on "morality" cannot be fairly applied to any population.
***This is not entirely true.  Murder is certainly immoral, and based on the set of "morality" that most humans share.  There is no truly objective (i.e., not based on morality) way to determine if murder or anything else is 'right' or 'wrong.'
****Murder is, by definition, an unjust (or "immoral") killing.  There are a vast array of ways to kill someone that are not considered immoral, including defense of self, others, and property.  Saying that murder is immoral is a tautology.
****Murder is prohibited because it directly violates the rights of another person. Drug use does not. Morality is not the basis of laws against murder, theft, and rape, rights are.
*****Morality is the basis of all laws. The claim that "rights" are the basis for all laws makes sense only if you also make the claim that it is immoral to violate another's rights. Think of it this way: Why is murder illegal? Because it is wrong. What about it makes it "wrong"? Well, nothing, really, just our innate moral sense that it should be wrong. There's really no logical reason to make murder illegal. Murder is only wrong from a moralistic point of view.
******The idea that morality is inherently the basis of all laws, as expressed above, is overly simplistic. Violating another's rights should not be restricted because such is immoral. Upholding another's rights should be performed because of a given governmental system's agreement in doing so and stated commitment to equal support of such rights.
*****Drug use falls into the class of victimless crimes, such as prostitution; the only victim is oneself, as it is with alcohol use. Declaring these drugs immoral and others not is the greatest form of hypocrisy.
******Drugs are not a "victimless crime," unless you don't consider Phil Hartman to be a victim. Even if they were, this would still not be an argument for making them legal.
*******"The reasons for the murder/suicide are unknown, although friends of the Hartmans speculated in the press that the combination of their marriage problems and Brynn's drug addictions probably contributed" is stated in the Phil Hartman wikipedia article quite clearly. However, even if Byrnn Hartman's drug addiction was decidedly a contributing factor in her committing murder, it is clearly known that Phil Hartman was killed with a bullet, not a drug.
********Arguing that the primary harbinger of a murder (in this case, drug abuse) should not be condemned because its effects were indirect is at best illogical, and at worst highly irresponsible. As murder is universally condemned, it is only logical for a society to look for ways in which murders can be prevented, or at least, minimized. It is for this exact reason that certain acts (such as drunk driving) and possession of certain paraphernalia (such as deadly explosives, various drugs) are outlawed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.4.6 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Immoral

message: lhgjedfq  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.96.4 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  wMdFrXSH