This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Where to draw the line between legal and illegal drugs? Should we draw such a line in the first place?
I decided to present this question to the TED community after seeing one of the latest episodes of the Daily Show in which Jon Stewart compares the "illegality" of a large cup of soda and a large bag of weed.
My question is this - where should we as a community draw the line between legality and illegality? What should we consider that negative for ourselves that we decide to ban it? Are there certain drugs that due to their cultural or traditional value cannot be banned such as alcohol, wine of coffee? Would bans on certain drugs even work out?
Or are the questions above perhaps useless since we should not draw such a line in the first place in the spirit of libertarianism? Are people truly capable of deciding for themselves what is good and what is not or do they need the state to decide this for them in certain cases?
I am well aware of the fact that from culture to culture and depending on each individual's personal experience the answers will differ. This is why I do not expect to come close to reaching a consensus here, but the dialogue might help to understand other arguments.
These are truly some very complex questions and I am looking forward to your answers!
PS: The term "drugs" is meant to describe any substance that when taken alters the body's normal functions. And by this I'd like to also include unhealthy foods and drinks which do the same over a certain period of time.
Sabin Muntean 30+
What I find it interesting about this topic is that almost all decisions about legality have no real scientific or moral basis whatsoever. The saying "if it's not broken, don't fix it" comes to mind. As long as a majority is in favor drugs can be purchased. But an abstract regulation not based on an individual drug, but concerning all damaging substances in general seems almost impossible to formulate.
Brian Cox 20+
It seems to me that the proverbial "line" exists in terms of dose moderation. Whereas, a single "dose" equates to a cup of coffee, a sugary drink, a pint of beer, a cigarette, etc. If a single dose does not immediately impair your judgement, rendering you incapable of speech, motor, or sensory function, then this substance is tolerated. People inherently feel unsafe when someone is not in control of their faculties.
Is this an acceptable perception? Perhaps. However, there are substances such as marijuana that are often frequently bought, sold, tried, and occasionally abused. I do not think you can argue that the long term health effects of marijuana abuse are relatively minor in comparison to tobacco or alcohol.
Tobacco is more physically addictive than heroin and cocaine. It causes nearly every cancer under the sun. It is a deadly, deadly substance. If you've ever seen a patient in type II respiratory failure with COPD, you would probably feel as passionately about this as I do.
Alcohol is toxic to the liver in even seemingly small doses (we've forgotten what small doses of alcohol are). It too is implicated in dependence, severe liver and kidney disease, and destroys the lives of its abuser.
Long term health effects of marijuana: short term memory loss, loss of motivation, an appetite, ineffectual, loving, and usually too paranoid to be of danger to others.