All Drugs should be Legalized.
I accept the challenge and wish to debate with the following definitions:
: a substance that is used as a medicine
with emphasise on the second definition and
1. (Law) to make lawful or legal
2. (Law) to confirm or validate (something previously unlawful)
I wish pro the best of luck and thank him for starting this debate.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org............ http://www.poppies.ws............ 'Alexander the Great introduced poppies to the Near East, starting the flowers long history in Asia. Opium was largely used as a social drug in India and China. Ancient Asian texts described the medical properties of opium.' http://www.spiegel.de............ ' If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs. ' . Ok now i will adress your arguments '* Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.' My Opponent didn't explain why they would increase since just like drink driving stoned driving would be illegal , i don't see how prohibition deals with this problem , but even so i belive stoned driving is still better than drink driving because cannabis makes you drive more cautionsly and slowly. '*Secondly some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.' There is a few things wrong with this statement first of all some people view homosexuality as morally wrong this doesn't mean we should ban homosexuality also this is a logical fallacy because some people support your view it doesn't make it any more true . '*Thirdly legalization would increase the chances of the drugs falling into the hands of kids.' I do not think this is true because the black market would fall children would have to go to a drugs shop and buy it , there would definatly be age restrictions just like there are age restrictions for drinking alcohol . ' Due to the legalization of drugs and getting addicted to them can make them hazard minded criminals and that's all for today.' First of all Legalization would lead to prices of drugs falling making it easier for the addicts to get their next fix second of all i would like to add that not every drug addict is a criminal this is just a sterotypical view . The Link my opponent gave me only addresses the issue of marijuana legalization and has many bad arguments against legalization of marijuana in fact the first one on the list against marijuana is not true , 'Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.' Many people belive in the 'gateway drug' myth , Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug therefore people who go onto harder drugs have been likely to have tried Marijuana first , even if there is a 'gateway drug' it more likely is Nicotine or Alcohol .
I'd like to start the debate by pointing out that the entire argument posed by my opponent is copied from his other debates on the subject. He also specifically stated that round 2 is not intended for rebuttals and yet around midway trough his speech he started rebutting the arguments made by one of his former opponents(1). I'd like my opponent to proof-read his arguments that he copies to save time to make sure that he does not on accident break his own rules when debating and make rather strange cases (for example rebutting a link I didn't provide before I state my case is rather absurd). With that out of the way; Let's start my opening case.
I am going to warn readers that this debate contains graphic images that may not be suitable for children or those that are sensitive. If you are not comfortable with graphical, disturbing or disgusting images do not click the links in the arguments below.
Ladies and gentlemen; people of DDO, welcome to our debate. The drug of the mind truly must be debating, where people come together and form a special bond, discussing intelligent ideas with intelligent arguments and reach an intelligent conclusion. However, the drug of the mind isn't the only drug that is out there, for each day millions upon millions die of drug abuse. Millions are rendered homeless, addicted to a substance that they could just as well pay with their arm for they have nothing else to pay it with. The common street drug is way to common, and in fact it is so common that it is a serious problem. But what is the solution to that problem? Well, legalization of drugs most certainly ain’t it, and I'll tell you exactly why my opponent cannot defend the resolution at hand.
Let's look at the resolution word for word: All Drugs should be Legalized.
In order to successfully defend the resolution pro must not only talk in favour of certain, common drugs such as cocaine or marijuana: He must talk about and for every single drug that is in existence no matter how popular or unpopular it is. If it exists and is illegal it must be included and will have to be on store shelf by the end of this debate. So I'll pose the first condition of the debate:
All drugs should be legalized: therefore if pro cannot defend even a single drug then he has lost the debate.
This is rather logical: as long as that drug is illegal not all drugs should be legal and therefore the resolution is negated. With that in mind, let's start on the popular arguments and get them out of the way:
“extinguishing fire with napalm”
it hurts others
It hurts you...badly
So, you all take a hit and have a good time. Few weeks and a few hits later, you wake up and look down in the shower: This is what you see:
That's not all, you call your friend and he lost half a hand.
and finally the one that bought the drug is one foot fewer:
I'm sorry to have bombarded you with these disgusting images, but they state much more than a thousand words. If you want all drugs to be legal, this one has to be there on the store shelves as well, and we both know that this monstrosity will never become legal and thus the resolution is negated and Con wins. However, this isn't bound to some Russian street drug: All drugs have the potential to harm you; All drugs may be a gateway to a harder drug. It isn't certain, but it is a chance, and that's a chance to much. And thus we have the second condition that the resolution brings:
If my opponent cannot find a way to make dangerous drugs legal he has lost the debate.
It is completely irreverent if they will be bought or not: If those drugs are legal there is a chance someone will buy them and if someone is to buy them they impose a danger to themselves and others. This is much harder than beer and weed on a Saturday night, this is a dark world. This is a world where illegal and hidden might just be better than legal and always existing to template those that pass. Ladies and gentlemen, we know that the world is filled to the brim with idiots: and we know that idiots can and will hurt each other and will do things that rational thinking people wouldn't dream of; But why make it easy for them? Why should we make a pass on cocaine, Meth, bath salts and krokodil? We can't in good conscious allow it, for we cannot willingly impose danger upon millions and millions of lives to gullible to know better. We cannot create the temptation that might one day claim your children. We can not allow all drugs to be legal, because for each single 'Good' drug that we may find there will be a hundred that can kill you in the blink of the hit, the heat of the moment.
http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov... http://www.urban75.com... http://www.policymic.com...
Round 3 Rebuttals
[they would increase in quality reducing the risk of overdose]
People are overdosing on pain killers, perfectly legal medication where they know precisely how pure it is and with perfect knowledge of how much they are supposed to take. It isn't solely the purity of the drug that kills you, it is also the amount. People are greedy, gullible creatures that make mistakes and are quick to develop immunities towards certain stimuli. The drug hit that was enough the first time isn't as effective the second time so they increase the dose. They want to get a bigger high, they increase the dose. They just measure the amount incorrectly, and sooner or later they will accidentally place more drugs into their system than the body can cope with and die of overdose. We are not going to do any better if we increase the accessibility: we'll just find new and improved legal ways to kill ourselves like we've done for millenia.
[Some homeless people are addicted to drugs am i supposed to cry about it? they chose to do the drug . ]
That's faulty logic for two reasons: Fallacy of the single cause and excluding the target audience.
Firstly you assume that the only reason someone becomes an addict is “because they chose too.” this is incredibly inhumane: It's the same reasoning as: “Why should I care about the holocaust? They chose to be Jews” and “Why should I cry over those that commit or attempt suicide? It's their choice to take their own lives.” It may not be as drastic and those examples are wrong for multiple other reasons, but they all share the fact that you're assuming that the sole reason for something is choice. People are pressured into drugs, they test drugs out of curiosity but failed to realize the addiction and they are forced into that world. It's not a single cause of choice and you should care. The second fallacy is that you can't choose to cry over everyone else that dies but exclude those that don't specifically fit your case. If you care about legalizing drugs on the basis of overdose you must be concerned over the loss of those that die, otherwise you wouldn't be making the case. But why should you cry over them? It was their choice to do drugs, right?
[they cannot purchase them through a drug dealer that has an unregulated business. ]
Think again: Legalizing something does NOT take it off the black market as you propose. In fact a large majority of teens in my local area that are under-age can rather easily buy home-made, illegal alcohol because it is cheaper. As long as someone offers them cheap drugs they'll buy it there. You said it yourself in the rebuttal below this one: It is easier for a child to buy from a drug dealer then asking for favour. Same rule applies here: Contradictions aren't going to work in a matter as grave as this one. As long as someone is selling black someone is buying black: and it is simpler to find the illegal unmonitored one than finding a bypass for the legal one.
[It is easier for a child to buy from a drug dealer than asking for a favour]
[it is more dangerous and expensive for their parents to get their next fix]
[he hurts someone he is responsible for it … how does prohibition deal with that?]
It's not the same: We take a license to prove that we are fit to drive safely. We can have our license removed and the odds of someone that knows perfectly what they are doing still has rational thought. Imagine if you'll let everyone and anyone drive a car after the age of 16 without any training or licensing. Accident rates are going to go up as a logical conclusion of the fact that more bad drivers that didn't pass the exam are now on the street along with all the drivers that lost their rights due to not following traffic laws. Prohibition limits the access to drugs and are removed from play.
'[Sure why not it is safer than when people buy it from a black market , ]
[ Krokodil is not just your addictive drug that people start doing it is a drug that heroin addicts turn to. ]
you missed the entire point of that argument: should Krokodil, a drug that makes your body start rotting, be legal? IF it shouldn't be legal the resolution is negated. It's a drug, it's illegal, how popular it is is not important, it exists and falls under the resolution.
[by trying the drug you are making the concious decision to do so you are accepting that there is a risk and if you choose to do it is not my business to stop you]
[assuming that if drugs were legalized more people would do it , this is not a certain thing]
It's illogical to use “It might be x, we don't know” so this point should be dropped as it is. Also remember that Portugal has only allowed the possession of small amounts while all methods of obtaining it are still illegal. Say you have a 10g cap. You want more. You're no longer allowed to possess what you want. You cannot buy it. You turn to the black market. The reason the numbers didn't change is because the situation is still the same.
[I don't see how making something available that was already avaiable gone have a big impact . ]
[Capitalism doesn't work that way the drugs we would see in drug stores would be the most common ones that receive the most interest like Cocaine]
-chance of heart attacks
-chance of strokes
-in case of crack: Permanent lung damage. In case of snorting, nasal tissues rupture
-chance of ulcers and other related stomach issues
Common does not equal good. Legalizing Weed, I can get behind. Legalizing this? It's as bad as smoking normal cigarettes and that's saying something.
ROUND 2 REBUTTALS NOT COVERED HERE
[humanity has been using drugs for thousands of years of human history it is a part of human culture]
so is war, complete lack of female rights, slavery and oppression, all of which have been embedded in human culture since the dawn of time until recently in the western world and all of which are by definition bad. Your point being?
[ The black market would collapse]
This is oversimplification: You're assuming that the only produce that black markets offer are drugs? Not even close; The black markets goes on to the next law it can break and sells that. Buy a gang controlled prostitude to see my point.
[heroin apart from its addictivness is almost harmless for your body]
Become an addict and then type that one again. Being an addict is a serious condition: it won't be like “hmm, haven't had a smoke in a while”. You're obsessed with it: you need your shot, the withdrawal symptoms include cramps, vomiting, fever, muscle and bone aces, crying and insomnia. You're going to loose your focus a bit and unlike smoking you can't really pop out back for a moment and inject yourself with heroine. Also, overdose is possible, shoot a bit much in your arm and you're out cold.
[Drug addicts often how to commit crime to get money for their drug]
And they won't stop. If suddenly all drugs are legal are you really going to expect me to believe that gangs would vanish and those already in deep s***(pardon) would suddenly stop going to the black market? They'll still exist, and still operate at a similar level. A drug lord isn't going to look at the next pharmacy and think: “Oh, fiddlesticks; pack up guys, they got us, we have no further business here!” He'll fight back and use the same old methods for the same old clients. Just as illegal alcohol vendors exist illegal drug vendors will exist and crime will still hang around.
My opponent has still not a dressed the two conditions I set out for him and until he does that the resolution is not properly defended. WHY and HOW should ALL drugs, good, bad, popular or unpopular, be legalized. I await the next set of arguments by my opponent.
http://www.ncadd.org... 'Alcohol is the most commonly used addictive substance in the U.S. 17.6 million people, or one in every 12 adults, suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence along with several million more who engage in risky drinking patterns that could lead to alcohol problems.' 17.6 million is the number and there is more than 300 million americans , I did not say that numbers would lower i said that i don't know and they could lower , stay the same or rise it depends on many factors and there would be different results in different places . 'Imagine if you'll let everyone and anyone drive a car after the age of 16 without any training or licensing. Accident rates are going to go up as a logical conclusion of the fact that more bad drivers that didn't pass the exam are now on the street along with all the drivers that lost their rights due to not following traffic laws. Prohibition limits the access to drugs and are removed from play.' We are already letting adults do a lot of things do you want to ban suicide too ? driving is completly different to doing drugs . 'Selling a drug that effectively can force you to kill a goat and become a cannibal isn't any safer if it is sold legally.' I said it is better because it would increase in quality . 'you missed the entire point of that argument: should Krokodil, a drug that makes your body start rotting, be legal? IF it shouldn't be legal the resolution is negated. It's a drug, it's illegal, how popular it is is not important, it exists and falls under the resolution.' It would be legal and like i said in my previous argument not a lot of people would use it 'If I told you there was a chance I'd attack you and eat your face would you then consider it to be your business? ' First of all what are the chances of that? second of all again how does prohibition deal with it? 'It's illogical to use "It might be x, we don't know" so this point should be dropped as it is. ' My opponent failed to explain why it's illogical to think that way . ' The reason the numbers didn't change is because the situation is still the same.' The situation is not the same . 'Pricing. You suggest that drugs are expensive and will be cheaper if legal. Isn't this increasing the availability? ' Often it makes dealers , making more profit and makes companies invest in something that will produce them more profit . 'Common does not equal good. ' I never said it does however it's better than krokodil that i explaned why it won't get popular . 'so is war, complete lack of female rights, slavery and oppression,' and all these things can change I don't think drug use will ever stop . 'This is oversimplification: You're assuming that the only produce that black markets offer are drugs? Not even close ' I was reffering to the illegal drug market . 'Become an addict and then type that one again. Being an addict is a serious condition' That is why i said 'apart from its addictivness'
thank you pro for the arguments. i'll refute:
„Drug overdose death rates in the United States have more than tripled since 1990 and have never been higher. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from drug overdoses, and most of these deaths were caused by prescription drugs.[...] More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause „
That's pretty often.
[ Many people that have been addicts for long enough do indeed require larger doses but with this , the risk of overdose decreases aswell because the body is more tolerant to it ]
So how does offering drugs in one place increases accesibility when before you also could get it just in a different place .
[jews Hitler didn't kill jews for their religion]
[Drug addicts do choose to take the drug ]
[I have listed many reasons why i support Drug Legalization]
[ most experts reckon that drug legalization would lead to prices falling . ]
[It takes more effort to get it legally than illegaly .]
Let's say I want to get some weed. I've not a clue where to start: I'd maybe contact my friend because I know he has a few friends doing the substance. I'd then have to contact those guys who live an hour drive away from me and see if they can sell me some or tell me who is the dealer and arrange a meeting with him. That might take several days, at least a 3 hour trip to the capital, and I don't have three hours to go anywhere with my life swirling around me. Legal means it's visible and easy to access. Illegal means that people hide it and have to go a few more corners to get things. In what way is it faster to get illegal merchandise?
[where the hell did you get that statistic from ? It's certinaly not over 50%]
out of those around 1/12 are serious addicts and there is a larger range of people that are in high risk of becoming serious addicts.
[i said that i don't know and they could lower , stay the same or rise it depends on many factors and there would be different results in different places ]
That's not an argument for either case, it isn't even an argument, it's accepting that all three results possible might happen. It's virtually the same as accepting that a coin could land on one side but also the other one.
“it is more dangerous and expensive for their parents to get their next fix“
[We are already letting adults do a lot of things do you want to ban suicide too ? driving is completly different to doing drugs]
[I said it is better because it would increase in quality]
[It would be legal … not a lot of people would use it]
[what are the chances of that?]
[ second of all again how does prohibition deal with it? ]
My opponent failed to explain why it's illogical to think that way .
It's illogical because you're making a case out of chance. If we remove the comparison, think of the sentence:
“Mikal might win the debate; we don't know.”
I gave the following reasons:
All these will drive the usage up.
[The situation is not the same]
[Often it makes dealers , making more profit and makes companies invest in something that will produce them more profit ]
[all these things can change]
['apart from its addictivness']
My opponent has a single round and he still hasn't met either of the two conditions that are required for the resolution to hold. WHY should dangerous drugs that do have a dangerous side effect be legal despite it's dangers and HOW would someone make a substance that kills you and make you a risk to others legal without interference from already existing laws and regulations? I'd like my opponent to make a structured case that properly defends the flaws of the resolution: read over my rounds and address all unaswered arguments that are not refuted and are vital to the resolution.
mistakenly believes that he or she needs to use the same amount of the
drug they were using before. Lower tolerance may cause a potentially fatal
overdose. ' So when the person was using his body was more tolerant to the drug. 'I, personally, cannot get drugs where I live. They are not sold legally, I do now know anyone that sells them and I haven't randomly been offered them. I have however been offered alcohol and tobacco and can buy it without any difficulties whenever I randomly decide that they tempt me' And do you really think if drugs were legalized everyone in your area would start doing them ? wait a sec humans have been drinking alcohol for thousands of years there are theories claiming alcohol was used before bread , Humans had to drink a lot of alcohol because the water they had was dirty and full of bacterias that they didn't know existed , as humanity progressed alcohol stayed with us , Tobbaco is a different case because at the start we didn't know that it had bad effects therefore many people quickly got addicted and havent been very bothered with it , as we have learnt more about tobbaco the numbers of users were and are declining . 'Peer pressure is a powerful thing, it isn't choice,' Yes it is unless they are physically putting the drug into you , you are making the choice to do it . 'They may have been forced into it.' sure it could have but we don't see people litterly putting cigerrates in peoples mouths and stopping them from getting it out , It is quite rare to actually force someone to take a drug, 'It may have been their only way out of the gloomy darkness and they may have been thinking irrationally or not be mature enough to understand the effects. ' Just because you thought irrationaly doesn't mean you didn't have a choice , now that's a logical fallacy.' that you seemed completely void of all feelings towards those that I used to make my case while showing sympathy for those that support your case ' I don't like to use moral reasons , because they are not gone get you anywhere reduced risk of overdose is just a pro of legalization and that's why i sympethize with it. 'That's great; Now we have cheap, unsafe drugs on the black market.' . I explained before why the black market would fall or at least become slower , why would they buy unsafe drugs from such a place when they can buy clean drugs? 'Let's say I want to get some weed. I've not a clue where to start: I'd maybe contact my friend because I know he has a few friends doing the substance. I'd then have to contact those guys who live an hour drive away from me and see if they can sell me some or tell me who is the dealer and arrange a meeting with him' now what if you live in a place where not a lot of people do drugs , and you are underaged and you want to get some drugs there are likely to be no drug stores in the area and you would also have to travel far and try to find someone who will buy it for you. 'That's not an argument for either case, it isn't even an argument, it's accepting that all three results possible might happen. ' I never said it's an argument i was explaining that all 3 could happen , I think it is better than having over-populated prisons and tyrannical cops ' There is a difference going around the corner and buying beer and going to the next alley and buy something that is "dangerous and expensive". ' Actually i used that argument when talking that It wouldn't be as bad to be an addict and i consider that a pro. ' It is impossible to punish someone for killing themselves,' However many have been punished for attempting to kill themselves . 'you're not seeing the big picture. Let's assume that you're the government. You cannot accept selling a drug that has these side effects. But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? ' Haven't I already talked a lot about Krokodil in my past arguments? I don't have to repeat myself on that one 'But the resolution requires that it will become legal, so how do you propose to pass the notion to make Krokodil legal? ' You change the constiution , and say that the use of any drug is legal and shall not be punished 'Does it matter? If I pointed a gun at you and told you that there is only a 6% chance of it shooting you in the face would you allow me to pull the trigger?' How is that any relevant to what i said ? that's a completly different scenario . 'but I didn't understand this argument nor how it relates to the topic. Would you mind rephrasing?' Because the delears are not making much money any more it is less attractive for them 'All these will drive the usage up.' i already said that the numbers might go up or stay the same and that there are many factors like religion , age etc 'Addictiveness is what makes it dangerous, that's the issue we need to fix.' and that is why i said apart from it ,,,, . Conclusion - My opponent has failed to use any strong arguments against legalization .
Readers of the debate, Drugs and drug abuse are generally considered a bad thing by the general population and have a deep moral attachment to them, but this isn't the only thing that is bound to the phenomenon. My opponent and I have discussed several different sides and issues with the topic and both sides have placed rather good arguments to the table. I however, without being too much of an egoist, believe that I have made the better case. Let me explain why:
From that conclusion I then went a step further and pointed out that drugs like bath salts and Krokodil won't become legal under any set of laws for the simple reason that no government would ever accept to legalize a drug that makes consumers loose a foot, no matter how popular or unpopular it would be in reality. This leads to the contradiction: If the resolution is to be true all drugs must be legal. But no government would make all drugs legal due to the nature of the most dangerous ones and thus the resolution can never fulfill itself. My opponent did not devise a solid case on how these drugs would become legal and thus didn't refute this deduction and the resolution is negated. But my opponent failed to realize this and instead pointed at the fact that these drugs wouldn't become legal despite me pointing out numerous times that it is irreverent: The consumer will never get a chance to choose if they'll buy the drug if it won't become legal. We know It will not be legal and thus the customer won't get a chance to make it unpopular meaning it isn't related to the argument. It would be related to the outcome, but not the argument itself.
In the following rounds of rebuttals my opponent made several wishy-washy statements and illogical arguments. Such arguments including that legalization of drugs might decrease but might also increase, depending on numerous other factors. This isn't incorrect, but it is also vague and incomplete. He took my argument about accessibility and made a completely irreverent answer that noted how people had been drinking Alcohol and using Tobacco for years and made a vague question that was only vaguely related on weather I thought that allowing drugs would make users increase, a question I already answered in both that round and the round before. He then made the assumption that the only way to force someone to do something was to physically make him do it. However this is incorrect, I can force you to do a lot of things without ever touching you. Your own mindset can force you to do a lot of incorrect things and if you've ever been drunk you should now that you can do a lot of choices that you would't would not do while in a sober, happy state. Choosing to do drugs isn't as light as my opponent is making it out to be and thus isn't a valid answer. It isn't illogical to think that a bad or dark mood is not a justification to bad decisions.
In his last round he also took my “small town” and turned it to a farm It seems. There is a pharmacy (drug store as my opponent put it) in every town I've ever lived in and the largest one is home to 6000 people, smallest 2000. I can go to a friend who is 21 if I want to get a beer. I can steel it from my family. I can stand outside and wait until someone buys it for me. Buying illegal drugs, as I've been pointing out, is much much harder. I wouldn't buy drugs without an incredible reason. I'm much more likely to buy booze without a reason and yet it is much more harmful than weed for example. When I gave a list of reasons that drug abuse would increase with legalization he dropped it completely meaning that none of the reasons where addressed at all and thus he has failed in explaining why usage would be unchanged. He missed my comparison to the gun that was about to shoot him and stating it as an unrelated scenario. If he had made the connection to the fact that certain drugs have a chance to make someone hostile and hurt you as a result, like a gun with a chance to shoot you, he would have seen how the scenario is related. So this went unanswered.
He points out that dealers would be making much less money without sources or citations and in reality this is a rather strange argument to make as it is relying on dealers selling as a primary income. If they are just doing it on the side they'll just keep on doing it to make a few bucks more. However his primary mistake was that he neglected the downsides of drugs and instead of finding real arguments to counter my arguments he simply stated “apart from addiction.” If I'd exclude everything bad from something of course only the good things will remain; but I have to take in the bad things and make real arguments against it. Truth to be told my opponent didn't satisfy his side of the burden of proof and only focused on the good things to drugs but completely ignored any and all bad things that are the result of their usage.
Readers of the debate: It is quite clear that my opponent is making a good case and I'd like to thank him for the challenging and interesting debate: but it is just as clear that his case isn't strong enough. It is clear that he hasn't fully grasped the full reach of the resolution. it is quite clear why the resolution will never work. His case was unfulfilling and not complete and the resolution has been negated. The conclusion of the evening is that drugs are not all bad, they have a good side to them: but they are far too dangerous and far too risky to allow into our legal medicine cabinet, and thus should remain in the underworld.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|