Post: Does the government have the right to say what you can/cannot put into your body?
Options
04-04-2013, 03:15 AM
#1
Jakes625
Guest
Now for the main question.. Does the government have a morally right say in what we can/can't put into our bodies? and is it just?
Voice your opinion.
Now for my input on this question. Personally I believe the government has no right saying what we can/can't put into our body. I believe it's completely immoral for them to do so. The reason for most of bans, illegalizations are for reports of abuse, public view of the substance, and the profit they can make on this. A lot of things which are legal I also disagree with being legal. Now I'm not saying lets do all the drugs we want, obviously they have potential to ruin lives but that is not always the case, but you can abuse anything, and most of legal chemicals are unjust and immoral. A couple examples of this are everyday things like deodorant, cough syrup, prescribed pills, diet soda, and hell even water. Any chemical can be abused, and it can be harmful. Deodorant can cause heart cancer, cough syrup contains a chemical called dextromythorphan hydrobromide which is a dissossiative similar to ketamine, and PCP. acetaminophen the active ingredient in asprin causes as much damage to your liver as 6 months of alcohol binging. (~ 500mg dosage). Diet Soda's fake sugar can cause cancer and heart failure, and you can overdose from drinking too much water. I mean these are threats we face everyday. In just our everyday products! Prescribed pills such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, adderal, lunesta, ambien, etc. are mostly different forms of amphetamines, opiates, opiods, which are btw (heroin, crack, coke, morphine). These are legal and prescribed to kids! They are very addictive and every year cause more overdoses than heroin, meth, and cocaine combined. This is a serious problem, now I have a problem with people using drugs which are addictive like amphetamines but I do believe they have the right to experiment with their own body. This is especially true when it comes to psychedelics such as hallucinogens. They have very low toxicity levels and cause almost physically no harm to the human body. Most of them actually mimic chemicals already made in the brain and which are used in everyday items such as dreaming, meditation, etc. So what about people who "get high and drive?". Well, yeah.. they should get punishments for their actions, it's not smart to be on the wheel and drink and drive but people should have the right to expand their consciousness and experiment with them. After all, what freedom do we really have if we can't explore our own consciousness? We don't have freedom of our own mind so what freedom do we really have at all? This is my intake on all of this, and I didn't really go into that much depth of my thoughts and I'm not trying to persuade you guys, I'm just saying be optimistic, or at least try too.
Post your opinions please, I'd like a good debate going here
04-07-2013, 11:01 PM
#56
Keomo
Can’t trickshot me!
Originally posted by Clutch
I don't disagree with drugs, I've just no interest in taking them and I don't like hanging around people when their mind is altered by whatever drug.
I take whatever medication I need. I rate my health higher than my personal dislike for drugs - I'd take marijuana or whatever else if I had a need to do so.
I take whatever medication I need. I rate my health higher than my personal dislike for drugs - I'd take marijuana or whatever else if I had a need to do so.
Are you sure your mind isnt influenced by any hallucinogenic drugs?
Lots of legal drugs have mind altering affects, you don't like to hang around them either? Not to mention you have lots of people who smoke weed claiming that they need it for their health, you sure you aren't one of them? Since you clearly stated if you needed it for your health you wouldn't mind doing it for the greater good.
Not to mention with all these side effects not being mentioned accurately enough unless you have to brains to actually research and study whats being used to create these apparently non harmful applications.
Ever see one of those commercials where they show you how your life improves if you use "X?" Well in between that they start speedtalking about all the dangerous side effects and their disclaimer etc, "If this has any negative effect on you, its not the fault of X company that you got from taking X, however immediately call such and such number in negative response to X for assistance".
04-07-2013, 11:30 PM
#57
Jakes625
Guest
Originally posted by Clutch
I don't disagree with drugs, I've just no interest in taking them and I don't like hanging around people when their mind is altered by whatever drug.
I take whatever medication I need. I rate my health higher than my personal dislike for drugs - I'd take marijuana or whatever else if I had a need to do so.
I take whatever medication I need. I rate my health higher than my personal dislike for drugs - I'd take marijuana or whatever else if I had a need to do so.
Alright, how do you feel about use of drugs but not abusing them? like being responsible on them?
04-07-2013, 11:41 PM
#58
04-08-2013, 12:20 AM
#59
Jakes625
Guest
Originally posted by Clutch
Still don't like it but still think it should be entirely legal (until you start doing things that could hurt others e.g. go driving drunk).
I agree with the hurting things, but then again. Not everyone does that shit. IMHO I wouldn't blame the substance, but rather the person, but other people feel differently. I'll have to accept it, but that's just what I would do. Sorry for all the replies.
04-08-2013, 02:09 PM
#60
Mr Grumpy
< ^ > < ^ >
I wouldn't mind that, still whenever I was young I never really read what was on the packet. My friend in fact was allergic to Artificial colorings but he'd often buy skittles and wondered why he had rashes and stuff. Some companies even put it at the back so more or less the time people don't know unless you read carefully. As a child the only thing you see is the brand name followed by the flavor/color of the packet, you don't look at nutritional information or any warnings. As with synthetic weed, often people do not know it's been synthesized and what other stuff have been added to it. If it was labeled big in the front of the package, then I would be okay with this. As long as nothing potentially harmful to my body or health.
04-08-2013, 05:25 PM
#62
Keomo
Can’t trickshot me!
Originally posted by Mr
I wouldn't mind that, still whenever I was young I never really read what was on the packet. My friend in fact was allergic to Artificial colorings but he'd often buy skittles and wondered why he had rashes and stuff. Some companies even put it at the back so more or less the time people don't know unless you read carefully. As a child the only thing you see is the brand name followed by the flavor/color of the packet, you don't look at nutritional information or any warnings. As with synthetic weed, often people do not know it's been synthesized and what other stuff have been added to it. If it was labeled big in the front of the package, then I would be okay with this. As long as nothing potentially harmful to my body or health.
In a way, that is control in itself. Even me, someone with 20 20 vision, can hardly read the labels on that packaging, and the letters get smaller and smaller and smaller... then you start reading about how it contains chemical "X" which can affect your body negatively in "X" amount of time. If they didnt have any rights to regulate this stuff, then why is it so many unhealthy foods get passed as safe to eat? Its like no one ever monitors what people are eating, how dastardly.
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
