'drug prohibition'
[ support:-76% : certainty:120 ] · [174 replies] · [1 comment]
arguments · summary
style: sort by: reverse:
supporting arguments 0% · [make argument]
no supportive arguments over 0%
opposing arguments 100% · [make argument]
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 20:50:06
It is more dangerous for both the individual and for society to prevent judicious access to certain drugs. For example, the exploratory use of hallucinogens has led to personal growth and increased awareness in those subjects (artists, philosophers and ordinary people) who have experimented with these substances. Likewise, the therapeutic use of hallucinogens helped a great many individuals with mental difficulties. These uses, and the methods employed were documented in the studies of early researchers in the field, such as Stanislav Grof and others. Closing off access to these substances reduces the overall level of consciousness in society and puts out of reach a powerful tool for working with the mind to a positive end. This creates an unsafe situation for all, as the people prevented from functioning to the best of their mental capacity, often in positions of power, act in ways that are confused and destructive of themselves, others, and the environment.
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 20:52:54
Nearly any activity, from driving a car to cleaning the house, can be dangerous. The legalization of drugs can aid in the minimization of the dangers of drug use (see harm reduction). It is worth noting that the effects of marijuana on the mind (including "amotivational syndrome") and body are minimal to nonexistent, especially when compared with other, legal activities (e.g., drinking alcohol)
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 21:01:29
It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid persons from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating, bungee-jumping, getting tattoos, or volunteering to work in leprosaria.

Powered by Debatepoint.