Pro-Drug: You say that drug use is addictive. Define that term.

Con-Drug: An addictive person needs something for their day-to-day life.

Pro-Drug: So, would you also say that food is an addiction?

Con-Drug: Certainly not.

Pro-Drug: Well, why not?

Con-Drug: I need food, yes, but it helps me. It benefits me. It satisfies a certain want that makes me a better person. For these reasons, I do not call it addictive.

Pro-Drug: What is the difference between needing food everyday and needing a drug everyday? Why is the one an addiction, and the other one not an addiction?

Con-Drug: I call daily drug use addiction, because it has a negative connotation to it; drug use has always been rightly considered a debilitating object when it comes to personal, moral, and educational development. There is very good reason to protest all legalization efforts of these abusive and anti-social substances. I do not call my daily food consumption an addiction because its use is positive and necessary to my goals; it is one of those goals being to live.

Pro-Drug: So, addiction is not simply the use of chemical inebriants. It is also their daily use. How frequent a person uses the drugs is also an attribute of addiction, correct? Instead of saying the word “addiction,” then, you might as well being saying “frequent use of something with a negative connotation”?

Con-Drug: Yes.

Pro-Drug: And frequent use of something with a positive connotation is not an addiction?

Con-Drug: That is correct.

Pro-Drug: What are some of the other activities for you that fall under the group of activities you engage in daily that have a positive connotation?

Con-Drug: I feel that activities like reading, exercising, and playing chess are helpful towards developing my brain and intelligence.

Pro-Drug: What style of literature fits your reading taste?

Con-Drug: I prefer the works of Locke, Rousseau, and other Enlightenment thinkers.

Pro-Drug: And what if congress, the president, the governor, or any other ruling authority were to ban the reading of such literature? What if the laws said that Renaissance literature or Ancient Greek philosophy was the only acceptable reading material?

Con-Drug: I would call those laws oppressive and tyrannical.

Pro-Drug: Why?

Con-Drug: The purpose of the government is to satisfy and uphold the will of the people. And so that the will of each individual person is respected, the government is to allow civil liberties. Among these civil liberties, we must count the right to read, write, and publish any type of literature that we want.

Pro-Drug: So, in your opinion, you deserve a civil liberty of freedom of speech, because you are more educated about your own wants in this area, than any other person, correct? That is to say, the government should not be allowed to regulate what type of literature you’re allowed to read, because it is something that only you can be allowed to make decisions about, right?

Con-Drug: That is correct.

Pro-Drug: And, what if the government were to make reading altogether illegal? Or, what if the government were to make it illegal to use some exercise practices, but not others? Or if it was only legal to use a checkered board for checkers?

Con-Drug: All laws would be tyrannical, but I can only hope that the people who saw such laws could see how ridiculous they were, and would revolt.

By Haadi