The Instigator
Harboggles
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
Spiral
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

All drugs of all classifications should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,125 times Debate No: 3292
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (34)

 

Harboggles

Pro

Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal.

1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay.
2.Many of them are harmless in the short term.
3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users.
4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate.
5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)
6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power.

I'm not saying let's give needles to every 12 year old. I'm saying educate them about the REAL risks. Educate them on the long term affects. Make it impartial.

When they turn 18 and can...

vote.
join the army.
drive a car.
own a gun.
buy cigarettes (which are worse than most drugs most doctors would agree)
use a prostitute. (where legal)
and do all other kinds of things...

yet we don't trust ourselves with some recreational drugs.

I invite anyone to disprove me. But when it comes down to it, what people do with their bodies is NO ONE's BUSINESS. I'm not defending meth heads, but I'm following along the principle of

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Replace "say" with put drugs inside your body.
Spiral

Con

For the same reason states legislate and enforce seatbelt wearing in cars for personal safety, so too do they enforce control over drug types. My opponent believes that there is no possible reason to illegalise drugs; however the state/government has a duty of care to its citizens, and as such acts in a manner befitting that responsibility. To make my point I will use one drug as an example of why the state exerts such control, that of Methamphetamine (MA). Unlike the majority of drug types where damage before the terminal stage can be repaired or reversed, MA has an unfortunate ability to cause irreversible damage to large sections of the brain (Homer, et al., 2008).

Methamphetamine (MA) is a highly addictive stimulant that has significant effects on the CNS. Recently, there has been a marked increase in the use and abuse of MA. The 2003 MA/amphetamine treatment admission rate in the United States was 56 admissions per 100,000 population (ages 12 or older), an increase of over 400% from the 1993 rate of 13 admissions per 100,000 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2006).

MA is a cationic lipophilic molecule that has striking effects on the sympathetic nervous system and central nervous system (CNS; Davidson, Gow, Lee, & Ellinwood, 2001). MA is more potent than its parent compound amphetamine because its lipophilic nature allows superior penetration of the CNS (Meredith, Jaffe, Ang-Lee, & Saxon, 2005). Similar to amphetamine, MA stimulates the discharge of newly synthesized catecholamines in the CNS and partially blocks the presynaptic reuptake of these neurotransmitters (Cho & Melega, 2002). Animal studies have shown that amphetamines, together with MA, target the dopamine transporter, which regulates dopaminergic transmission by facilitating dopamine reuptake (Davidson et al., 2001). Amphetamines have been shown to inhibit the reuptake of dopamine by reversing the direction of the dopamine transporter, leading to an increased dopamine release (Giros, Jaber, Jones, Wightman, & Caron, 1996).

Data from neuroimaging studies, neuropsychological testing, and psychiatric evaluation indicate that heavy use of MA contributes to a variety of psychiatric pathologies, including psychosis (Batki & Harris, 2004), mood disturbance (London et al., 2004), suicidal ideations (Zweben et al., 2004), anxiety (Zweben et al., 2004), hostility (Zweben et al., 2004), psychomotor dysfunction (Caligiuri & Buitenhuys, 2005), deficits in cognitive skills (Gonzalez et al., 2004), and, in extreme cases, paranoia, hallucinations, and delusion (Logan, 2002). There is compelling evidence that the negative consequences of MA use are due, at least in part, to damage to the brain caused by the neurotoxicity of MA.

In making decisions, MA abusers will tend to choose an immediate reward at the expense of severe negative consequences in the future (Verdejo-Garcia, Perez-Garcia, & Bechara, 2006). Paulus et al. (2005) found that these decision-making deficits are predictive of subsequent relapse in recovering MA addicts. Imaging studies have indicated that the impaired decision making of MA users is associated with dysfunction in the orbitofrontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, and parietal cortex (Paulus et al., 2003). Functional deficits have also been found in the anterior cingulum, which suggests that attention deficits may contribute to impaired decision making (Nordahl et al., 2002). By far the most common psychiatric symptom associated with chronic MA use is depression. In a study with one of the largest samples of MA users (N _ 1,016), Zweben et al. (2004) examined co-occurring psychiatric symptoms and found particularly high scores on depression scales for MA users. Specifically, 68% of the women and 50% of the men reported feeling depressed at some point in their lives, and 28% of the women and 13% of the men reported at least one suicide attempt.

"1.They can be taxed, more income that people would be happy to pay."

Yes there may be an increase in state revenue, but that revenue now goes into the implementation, control, checks and balances, treatment, hospitalisation, licensing etc. You cannot guarantee any long term profit.

"2.Many of them are harmless in the short term."

Actually no, drugs are not. You are confusing harmless with repairable harm, drugs cause damage, they change physiological systems. The body then tries to adapt and repair those changes.

"3.We've wasted more money on the war on drugs than we would have simply TREATING addicts and ignoring casual users."

Until you can back that statement up with current spending and projected spending, it is not debateable. It is just as valid for me to say, no you are wrong, and leave it at that.

"4.Most of these drugs are only psychologically addictive (Weed, Shrooms, etc) and are no more dangerous than chocolate."

Breaking news, chocolate overdoses are on the rise.....oh wait, NO they are not. Drugs are not only psychologically addictive. Addiction is a factor of 3 main components,

• Social
• Drug characteristics
• Drug user characteristics

Social is the environment that the user normally partakes in, it influences the person physiological responses when in that environment including craving and tolerance (conditioning).

"5.There is actually little conclusive evidence supporting many of the claims made by anti-drug persons. My own father claimed marijuana causes testicular cancer (when most research has actually shown is cures cancer, or prevents it)"

Your father is hardly the proto type of drug consensus. Additionally drug myths are scarcely a reason to legalise. How exactly would that change the general rhetoric of a population? Even if it did, again, why is that a reason to legalise when education programs would be cheaper, safer and more efficient?
Furthermore, marijuana does not cure cancer, at all. It is prescribed, in the case of cancer (chemotherapy) patients to 1. Increase appetite. 2. Decrease pain symptoms.

"6.By taking the illegality away we would destroy the underground drug markets, all of the drug related deaths around the world would CEASE to exist because drug cartels no longer have power."

Actually no you won't. Drug cartels still need to produce and operate illegally on the basis of the global position of drugs and use. Secondly, whatever price the government sets, there will be a market for a cheaper price, a competitive market. Competition is what has resulted in these cartels related deaths to begin with.

As all of your points are now mute to a favourable conclusion for your pro-drug argument, I relieve the debate to you for a proper and logical clarification for your position.
Debate Round No. 1
Harboggles

Pro

First of all. Your entire argument is already null with one statement.

It's not the job of the federal government to monitor what I do with my body.

That having been said, there are some merits and safety issues I should address to be fair.

"has a duty to care for it's citizens"

Sure. I agree with that. But my governments concerns should be my right to happiness as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. The principle on which our country was founded.

"seat belt laws"-If I want to not wear a seat belt, it's my PERSONAL decision, I don't hurt anyone by not wearing one.

Now then onto meth.

I hate meth. I think it's a terrible drug that destroys families and lives and it was one of the drugs I was NOT referring to when I said "most".

That having been said, if one legalizes it, make medical help for it available, people will stop making it in trailers and dying from chemical inhalation. Again, it's the right of the government to inhibit what I use.

Meth is bad I'm not disagreeing with you. But it's the RIGHT of a free citizen to use it if he wants. Educate people about it's dangers and treat addicts and not criminals, maybe they will stop using, maybe they won't. But it doesn't affect me.

Onto my points that you think you refuted.

1.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

That's the taxation income for cigarettes. That's billions of dollars. For 1 ADDICTING drug. Legalizing all other drugs would triple or quadruple that income and that is a substantial amount of money. You can't even begin to argue that. I would gladly pay 0-20% tax on a pack of marijuana joints.

2.Quote me studies. You are generalizing. To say all drugs are bad is stupid. Long term use of many drugs is going to have some consequences, such as weight gain from the munchies. But if you EDUCATE THE PEOPLE in what doses are healthy, which drugs are addictive, and how to quit if addiction should occur then it's fine.

Besides, I'm living proof. I have been a daily (sometimes up to 5 times a day) smoker of Marijuana for 10 months. I just stopped last week because I put on weight. I don't even miss it.

Also, back to my idea of personal liberty, it's not the government's job or within their power to regulate my body and what goes in.

3. "Despite intensive eradication efforts domestic marijuana production has increased ten fold
over the last 25 years from 1,000 metric tons (2.2 million pounds) in 1981 to 10,000 metric tons
(22 million pounds) in 2006, according to federal government estimates" (Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) By Jon Gettman, Ph.D.)

Here is a counter for the War on Drugs spending for THIS YEAR. Imagine that multiplied by 30-40 years ever since it began.

http://www.drugsense.org...

And what has it shown? I can have marijuana, ecstasy, acid, coke, within 5 minutes because of my connections. For very cheap too. The war hasn't stopped anything it's just created a market that's in high demand and raises the cost of drugs. As long as their is a demand, there will be drugs. You can't eliminate the demand, so you can't eliminate the market. So let's stop wasting money on it.

4.Like I said, I just quit pot after heavy use for 9 months. QED. My friends invited me out to smoke. I turn them down.

Some people have addictive personalities, they can't stop eating chocolate, they can't stop playing video games, they can't stop drinking.. (should we outlaw alcohol? Oh wait, we did, look how well that turned out)

Granted some drugs like Heroin and Cocaine can be addicting, but there are plenty of casual users who don't get addicted. Even so, how does sending them to jail help? It just punishes them and then they repeat again because they are treated as criminals and not as patients who NEED help quitting.

Besides, examine the chemical makeup of drugs, very few have a chemical that will cause a physical addiction.

5.Google "cancer marijuana" THC has been shown to attack cancer cells, combined with the coughing associated with marijuana that it is theorized shakes loose all tar from your lungs unlike cigarettes.

I'm not saying he is, I'm saying that he buys into some of the hype surrounding drugs without any evidence.

Myths are myths. I'm talking about STUDIES.

Even so, the federal government (and much of the world whom have the capacity to) will not allow studies to pass very easily because it requires use of the drugs. This means that hard conclusive evidence on drug use is hard to come by.

For what information there is, I would read the drug portal www.erowid.org. He quotes independent studies and admits when a drug is dangerous.

But again, why should anyone interfere with my own personal liberties? Right, they shouldn't. As long as I don't hurt anyone. Such as DUI. If you are driving under the influence of drugs, you should be arrested and tried. That is directly endangering the lives of others and cannot go unpunished.

6. No. If drugs were legalized tomorrow. 400 companies would spring into action providing a cheap legal way to buy it LOCALLY and without being imported from other countries. If you take away the illegal market, the cartels disappear. We get cleaner drugs that aren't cut with unknown substances, quality can be regulated, and prices will go down.

Cartels will no longer have a market to sell to, so they will just go legit or die out. If big corporations compete with each other (in a country like the United States where we COMPETE among businesses) then the competition will be with money, not guns.

All of my points are very "mute" or did you mean moot?

You just lost a huge amount of credibility for not being educated enough to know the difference.

QED I win.

ps. READ what I wrote back to you. Don't just spew out your opinions.
Spiral

Con

Due to character limits on replies I will only part quote the argument I am refuting, my apologies.
"It's not the job of the federal government to monitor what I do with my body."
Actually it is, the governments' job, in part is to protect the individual and if necessary, protect them from themselves. If Liberty infringes on Life or Happiness, it can't be, if Life infringes on Happiness or Liberty, it can't be, if Happiness infringes yours or others Liberty and Life, it can't be.
"I hate meth. I think it's a terrible ..."
You are changing your debate premise here. "Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal." The only instance where you use the word "most" is in reference to drug addiction. The model I gave, is a drug addiction model, not meth addiction model, it applies to all drugs of use. Drugs become addictive the same ways, the class and type are only malleable factors within that addiction. For the more natural based drugs, shrooms, salvia etc, there is no base line for easy measurement of safe use, the person's physiology; past experience and setting are far too varied and unique to ensure a safe use episode. I should point out that personal experience is hardly a valid basis for a logical argument, it is a basic inductive reasoning error.
"That's the taxation income for cigarettes..."
For that to work
1. Remarked increase in drug use. 2. You are now advocating heavy use within the population. 3. Heavy use equals significant health problems. 4. You have now advocated a major health crisis. 5. Costing the government more money in health care. 6. The price of drugs has now gone up due to taxation. 7. Undercutting government pricing will occur. 8. People will now be risking poor control quality over cost ratios. 9. Poor quality is an increased risk factor for health. 10. Work quality will decrease. 11. Costing company's money because of heavy users. 12. Influencing economy. Example: during the industrial revolution where alcohol consumption was not regulated, resulting in injury, lost time and economic down turn.
"Quote me studies..."
I never said all drugs are bad, I said they cause harm, in most instances repairable. Drugs are a compound that produces physiological and psychological changes normally by effecting neurotransmitter action in the case of the latter. Any label such as "good" or "bad" is a purely subjective one. I did not label MA as bad; I merely provided sound reasons why the government legislates against it.
"But if you EDUCATE THE PEOPLE ..."
"Despite intensive eradication ..."
All you have done is shown the spending to be at best, ineffectual; you have not explained at all why legalisation is a more beneficial alternative to the states needs. Education of drug use effects, combined with illegalisation, programs designed to change social norms of behaviour combined with illegalisation all provide a better alternative than carte blanche legalisation. You are advocating open support of a need instead of responsible management. For future reference on validity of information and data provided, .org sites are not consistent with data. They carry biases trained on their intent and do not constitute as a proper, valid source.
"Some people have addictive personalities..."
There is no strong evidence for an "addictive personality" it is a behavioural expression of maladaptive thinking, reasoning, risk taking, and cue activation. As such, behaviours can be minimised and unlearnt. You also appear to be under the erroneous assumption I am advocating prohibition on all drug classes, not at all, I am just stating that not all drugs should be legalised.
"Granted some drugs like..."
There are users that don't get addicted, and yes there are those users that do. De-legalising does not change the addiction process. Prison time does not automatically exclude a rehabilitation program. Reasons why it's illegal do not only stem from individual harm, but from harm the individual causes his environment as well. Work ethic, being one of them, and if there is no work ethic, the dropping of his socio-economic status (deeming him pretty much useless to society and the government, and useless for the state to even protect. It's a partnership; the state is not your father. You both have contracts). Again you are advocating the very thing you are arguing against, for the state to implement rehabilitation programs you are saying they have a duty of care to the individual, above the rights of the individual themselves.
"Besides, examine the chemical makeup..."
You are right to a degree, drugs are ‘neutral' when it comes to addiction, however, drug use and interaction (drug effect) is where addiction processes occur. Non use would solve that of course, but since you are advocating, drugs as an agent of use does not lead to addiction, we can continue.
The majority of neuronal firing due to drug action occurs within the Tegmentum, occipital, and some pre frontal cortex regional spreading. Reward from psychomotor stimulants and from opiates appears to involve activation of the same brain reward system as that activated by electrical stimulation. Dopamine, and GABA are the neurotransmitters most consistently linked with reward from these drugs, and the ventral tegmental neurotransmitter system is specifically involved in psychomotor stimulant and opiate rewards. Other drugs serve as reinforcers (e.g., alcohol, barbiturates, caffeine, marijuana, and nicotine) also activate the ventral tegmental dopamine system. Furthermore, abstinence from cocaine or from morphine after repeated administration may decrease dopamine levels in this brain system (Bozarth, 1989; Rossetti, Hmaidan, & Gessa, 1992)Use leads to tolerance>higher drug levels for same effect.
"5.Google "cancer marijuana..."
One large study that showed the cancer causing effects of marijuana smoke may be negated by THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke which may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation. A respectable scientist knows findings and studies need to be redone to be verified, so whilst it is a promising finding it is by far an absolute. The author of the study still says "while I still believe marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought."
"Myths are myths. I'm talking about STUDIES."
The only time I mention myths are in relation to your familial example of...marijuana myths, and as to why that serves a reason for legalisation where cheaper effective education would suffice.
"Even so, the federal government ..."
Drug studies are done by recruiting drug users. No study recruits non users and administers drugs. There is a phenomenal amount of literature on drug users. You may need to try harder than googling next time. Most literature resides in publications.
"No. If drugs were legalized tomorrow..."
Another erroneous assumption, even assuming local companies produce and distribute, there is still a vested interest for both local and off shore operations to under value the local market. Case in point, movies are sold in the U.S., doesn't mean Americans don't buy pirated movies.
"All of my points are very "mute" or did you mean moot..."
1. Mute: to silence, your points have been silenced. 2. Questioning my credibility over an erroneous mistake on your behalf, shows little more than an immature jibe 3. Statements to the effect of "I win" during debating period contravenes this sites rules of conduct. 4. My closing statement first round was after your posting without a reference, exempting a quote. How is that anything other than opinion? I have clearly distinguished what is opinion and fact by reputable referencing. 5. QED. ~ quod erat demonstrandum: that which was to be demonstrated. You have solved nothing to use QED.
You have not used logical deduction to come to a valid conclusion. Your logic is flawed.
Debate Round No. 2
Harboggles

Pro

I'll number by quotes you're refuting.

1.No it's not. The role of government is to create infrastructure such as roads, schools, banks, public transport, and other things. NOT to regulate our bodies. You should be shocked by the concept.

The founders wanted government OUT. The English were smothering us with unfair taxation and unfair representation. We had no say on our daily lives at all. The framers wanted the government to be left out of everything. I'm a political science major. Don't even ATTEMPT to debate this with me.

99% of political scientists will tell you it's against the framers intent. The constitution itself is written on hemp. Drugs were legal until the 20th century until they became "immoral".

2. My personal hates of a drug do not make it moral or immoral. Further, it's not my place to tell people what they can or can't do. I have my personal feelings as do you. But I'd never restrict someone from using a drug unless they planned to do something stupid like murder.

3.Marijuana alone would bring in at least 10 billion dollars per year. If not more. There is such huge demand for a drug that causes no hangover and has not caused a single death in the history of its usage. There is marketability. There is already a large quantity in the unites states, it wouldn't be hard to tax them as is and drug use is already rampant. The police don't catch everyone, and most high schoolers these days admit to trying at least one drug. I'm not advocating heavy use, I'm advocating the education of the populace about the affects of all drugs, when they turn 18, let them make their own decision. Let them use drugs in the privacy of their own home. Punish them for driving under the influence and selling to minors very harshly. Drugs are capable of being used positively with the right education. Tring Ecstasy once won't kill you. But continual use will eventually catch up to you. Let people weigh these decisions themselves. With proper drug education from an early age it's more than possible. Use the increased taxation to pay for health care. (I don't want to get into our economics and health care system that is already messed up enough and a completely different topic)

The price of drugs won't go up. The reason they are the price they are now is because of the illegal means they have to go through. When you buy pot, you're paying the dealers for the risk of jail time that they take. 100$ of marijuana in South Africa will buy you a pound (about 3000$ in the NW united states). Because it's not illegal there. Making something illegal drives prices up. Examine also the prohibition of alcohol, prices sky rocketed, but people still got booze at speakeasys.

For your point 8. What? 10. According to? 11. According to? 12.Understandable, but if an employee of mine comes to work under the influence of drugs I would issue a reprimand and immediately fire him. People need to learn personal responsibility.

4.Quote me studies that drugs are "causing harm" and a "negative" influence on society. Wait. Don't bother. Examine Europe. They are superior to us in almost every regard and most of them have decriminalized marijuana possession. Some have even legalized. The people are happy, more intelligent than us, have more social services, and better quality of life.

5.So why spend money on a drug war that doesn't work? We could have improved our schools, created free health care, free college education, and stopped the spread of aids WORLD WIDE with the money leftover from the drug war from the last 30-40 years.

I'm advocating educating the populace of the risks. I'm advocating the idea that drugs are to be used responsibly. I am advocating that people be smart about using them. Don't DUI. Don't go to school/work high. If they do, they suffer the consequences. This is a basic concept. I have no idea why you have so little faith in it. People will fail at life if they don't learn responsibility, and the people that keep fucking up? They deserve to be thrown out on the streets. It's called survival of the fittest. But again, getting off point.

Erowid is consistent. It links to studies that are not on .org sites. Which is a stupid argument. A .org is no more reputable than a .com or a .gov. Read the content and JUDGE it on what it says, not what it looks like.

6.You've never taken psychology. Oh look, the newyork times. Read. http://query.nytimes.com...

7.2/3 of prison offenders, especially drug users re offend. Rehabilitation doesn't work. Want to know how I know that? I just took a Criminal Justice class from a PROFESSOR WHO HAS BEEN STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY FOR 20 YEARS! Are you smarter than a professor of criminology of 20 years? I think not.

Quote me a study that shows that drugs = you are lazy and don't do any work. You won't find one.

I'm not saying the state has a right to rehabilitate drug users. But what choice do they have? Do it and get out of jail early! They shouldn't be there in the first place. If they have addiction issues outside of jail they GO TO REHAB! WILLINGLY not through force from the fed.

8. That entire paragraph just explained and advocated psychological addiction. Thanks.

9."One large study" NAMES DATES AND SOURCES. "A respectable scientist..."

10. No idea what you're talking about.

11.Drug users are people too and are affected the same way. Also, they use double blind studies to insure that there is no placebo affect.

12.I'd rather buy the cheap stuff from 7/11 that I know will get me high, and I get a guaranteed price. Besides, marijuana "stores" would open (similar to medical marijuana shops) and would sell all varieties of marijuana goods. Eventually they would conglomerate and become corporations and cater to the whole nation.

Let's use your pirated movies example for something else. Tomatoes are legal. People still grow them at home for fun, or for a unique taste. My point is that all they would need is the seeds and they could grow at home. They wouldn't have to import it.

You still have failed to quote anything, you use vague terms and your logic is so utterly flawed that I don't understand why I spent time typing this.

I again refer you to the quality of life in Europe, and the decriminalized use of marijuana (and let's face it, they don't care about ANYTHING else either, I lived there.)

They are happier, smarter, and more well off than us.

We on the other hand have more people in jail per capita and in raw numbers than any other nation in the history of the world. Most of them non offenders.

My closing remark is that if you remove the illegal tag from an illegal drug, it is no longer immoral. It can be treated when used maliciously or an addiction is formed. It can be taxed and sold within the united states and it would. The infrastructure already exists within the tobacco industry, and I guarantee if it was legalized they would begin selling it. Unless, they don't want to make money....how likely is that?
Spiral

Con

To make this easier I refer back my opponents opening premises:
"All drugs of all classifications should be legal." (Title) "Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal." (Opening statement)
Of particular interest is All classifications should be legal, and, NO moral or logical reason to make them illegal. I will be referencing back to these core tenets throughout.
There are non-self harming moral reasons the state should push anti-drug values on its citizens. This collapses the "NO moral reason" stance.
The founders wanted government OUT: Why did the founders put government into voting, law into businesses, state interaction, and use government to protect the rights of citizens? United States has the Amendments, there is government, that government is allowed to fluctuate and change and breathe, but the founders put laws on how that happens. Simply said, if they wanted government out, US would be an Anarchy, not a Republic. The English were smothering, yes, and that is why the government now is fair in taxation and representation. I'm hoping that he understands that by saying "The founders wanted government to be left out of everything." that he knows what that entails. A small list of things government regulates: Agriculture, Defence, Justice, Labour, Education, Energy, Treasury, Security, and Health and Human Services. If the government cannot regulate these things, how would any of them run properly or safely? Everything needs a regulator for rights to be distributed properly, and fortunately, the founders wrote a checks and balances system so the government has government as well.
My opponents' use of personal experience as a valid logical premise is problematic. All personal and subjective experiences are equally valid and as such non debateable. Removal of the subjective is what logical constructions of arguments entail. My opponent presents an argument directly contradicting his own, that of NO reason. Harm to others is now adequate reason for control. It violates both tenets. He repeatedly refers to certain drugs causing harm, harm is reason not to legalise. There is no reliable income reference for legalisation profit. Legalisation will create a tier of companies, from production to sale. Many more people require a slice of the profit, meaning costs need to go up; hence the undercutting of sanctioned drugs will occur. Price WILL rise due to taxation/inflation, public is more likely to buy cheap that way. It is embedded in society (deal drugs to get by) and a population who will be unable to meet legislated pricing. An underground market due to legislated costs returns us to the current situation, where people have no assurance of drug quality, his way people will weigh cost/benefit over assured quality/higher cost. For employers to legally control drug use of employers there needs to be a control limit valid at a state legal level. It violates both his NO reason premise, and his assertions that the government has no right to control what a person does.
Mortality statistics are not only directly causational. Drug use, is risk behaviour for related areas of mortality. Cannabis use increases respiratory diseases associated with smoking, including chronic bronchitis, cannabis dependence syndrome, and cognitive impairment, more intense as level and time of use increases (Hall, Solowij, Lemon, 1994). A study of marijuana use and mortality was performed on 50 male Swedes, and followed for 15 years. The relative risk for mortality associated with marijuana use (more than 50 times) was after adjustment for social background (Andreasson, Allebeck, 1990). Marijuana use effects regional blood flow in frontal lobe, temporal lobe, and cerebellum, a measure of impaired brain function (Sneider, Pope, & Harrison, et al, 2006). All are valid reasons for a state to legislate control. Psilocybin may induce 'bad trips', a psychotic reaction accompanied by fear, panic, and dangerous behaviour, especially in combination with other drugs and alcohol. During a bad trip, individuals may hurt themselves (automutilation) (de Jonge, Portie, Franssen, et al, 2006). PCP may lead to loss of ego boundaries, depersonalisation, hallucinations, and euphoria. It can harm others because they have no sense of guilt, removes conscience. It comes down to the state applying a value of "acceptable risk" users, in regards to harm both to themself and others. My opponent fails to realise psychological addiction is not removed from the physical; tolerance, withdrawal, craving, cue activation, drug effect, conditioning, physiological changes, neuronal changes. This is why chocolate is far less dangerous than, alcohol, marijuana etc.
My opponent advocates spending on drug education, a strategy the state employs as a duty of care to its citizens. Either the state has duty of care and all that entails, or it doesn't. You cannot argue for both. Also, just because the state uses a rehabilitation program that fails does not mean none available work. Knowledge and affective approaches combined with societal pressure has worked successfully since trials in the 60's. http://www.sciencedirect.com... The state can apply new rehabilitation programs, whilst retaining legal control.
Correlations are not equal to causation; his arguments are littered with this fallacy (cf. FSM & pirates/global temperatures). Compared to western, Eastern Europe has higher rates of drug use, lower standards of living, there is not open legalisation. They discriminate between, hard and soft drugs, separation of the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user. The past decade, field studies have shown an increase in the use of crack cocaine, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity: Drug Situation, 2006 The Netherlands. Cannabis use among the general population reveals the same picture. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands 1999. The National Youth Health Surveys among pupils showed an increase in cannabis use since 1988; other drugs showed a similar trend: Trimbos Institute: Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, 2003. Legalisation has not decreased use; use is comparable to countries with no legalisation, legalisation does not decrease use in ‘hard' drugs where ‘soft' drugs are legal.
"Addictive personality" article states exactly what I did. They are behaviours, therefore modifiable. Personality is a stable set of characteristics, in the large part biologically based.
Tomatoes: does not cause harm, does not cost the state in health care, does not breach copy right infringements and pay of Employees in Movie business.
"My closing remark is that if you remove the illegal tag from an illegal drug, it is no longer immoral. " Since drugs are either morally obligatory or morally prohibited (and these are the only moral alternatives so one of them must be true) if it hurts any moral stance, it is morally prohibited.
My opponent has argued open season on drug laws, no personal control from government bodies, and no possible moral and/or legal reason for illegalisation of drugs. He has failed in this regards, providing examples himself that violate this rhetoric. States have a duty of care, drugs can do harm, addiction unfortunately occurs, reliable profit is not established, removal of illegal trade is not established. My opponent provides the moral argument of harm to others. These violate the ‘ALL drug classes, NO legal/moral reason tenets'.
Because I have given my opponent at least 1 moral reason (even if it is not a selfish one), and at least 1 through reason, I have defeated both of his main points, and thus, QED.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
Kid you need to learn how to spell, you're giving me a headache.
Posted by cjjavier3 8 years ago
cjjavier3
eLLiGAL grUgs shouLd bE prihibited !!! duh!h0w can a drug addict pay tax if he die's ..
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Yes, harboggles made some arrogant claims indeed. She still cannot defend her stance other than citing his technical faults, but I will give her the benefit of winning this one because he was not careful enough. I already criticized him for saying that mushrooms are no more dangerous than chocolate, and instead of taking the criticism responsibly he told me to cite my sources (?????).
Posted by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
dude shes right, pro needed to word better
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
The reason I only needed one reason, is because my opponent made the mistake of claiming a philosophical absolute, therefore only one reason is needed to defeat that, next time he should choose his wording more carefully. As an aside, I provided many more than just one reason as to why the state would legislate against certain drugs of use.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I have been hearing a lot about this "burden of proof" argument lately. It seems that whoever begins a debate loses it automatically, as long as the opponent can give one measley reason for their argument. Whenever this logic is employed, it is always because the challenged opponent cannot win and simply says "my argument is pathetic but that doesn't matter because the burden of proof is on you, and here is one (albeit petty) reason why your argument could be wrong."

There are rarely, if ever, any debates that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt one way or another. I am really quite sick of hearing this argument, and the quality of debating on this site is being compromised by the growing prevalence of this technique. I have 18 debates on my record and I have started every one of them (save maybe one or two), and using your reasoning I have utterly lost every single one of them.

To accept a debate called "All drugs of all classifications should be legal", and then try to win it by saying that "this debate is not about whether I can argue the case for legalisation of drugs" is pretty cowardly, I must say.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
"I would imagine after this comment it would be appropriate for you to exit stage left, since this debate is about the government legislating the war on drugs."
Rob1Billion; this debate is not about whether I can argue the case for legalisation of drugs, it is about providing my opponent at least 1 moral or legal reason why the state would (his premise). That is all. At its most basic, legislating against possible self harm provides an adequate moral reason. Therefore I have met the conditions of the debate.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
"Actually it is, the governments' job, in part is to protect the individual and if necessary, protect them from themselves"

wow.

This is taking liberalism to the next level. Step aside Barack Obama... I think that the conservative base is actually to blame for this type of radical liberalism, however. Most conservatives are not conservative AT ALL, and staunchly support invasive programs like the war on terror and the war on drugs. Conservatism is supposed to be about small government; keeping it out of our personal lives; keeping it out of other countries' internal affairs; keeping it out of business practices whenever possible (Laissez-Fare). When we have two parties and neither of them can demonstrate governmental conservatism, we get a bunch of really confused people (mainly the neo-cons and the liberals) who both have lost the wisdom to control tyrrany. I'm voting third party this november and I don't care if it is the olson twins running independent...
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Just because a person is responsible for following the law does not mean that our government is in the business of legislating responsibility. Spiral, I don't mean to sound mean, as I do respect anyone who bothers to conduct a civilized argument, but your arguments are especially unconvincing. You say "I am not advocating the government does or does not legislate anything". I would imagine after this comment it would be appropriate for you to exit stage left, since this debate is about the government legislating the war on drugs. I hope that sweetbags can defend his/her argument better than you can.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
"The government does not legislate responsibility." The states applying a subjective value of prison/fine due to breaking a law, is legislating responsibility. The person is accountable for their choices.
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by retributions-end 8 years ago
retributions-end
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FormerNavySeal 8 years ago
FormerNavySeal
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Shoot_Down 8 years ago
Shoot_Down
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by animadiaurum 8 years ago
animadiaurum
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by biophil 8 years ago
biophil
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vodyanoi 8 years ago
Vodyanoi
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lisaamey 8 years ago
lisaamey
HarbogglesSpiralTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03