All drugs should be Legalized
This shall be the format in use:
1. The instigator laying down rules
1. The contender acknowledgement and consent to the rules. The contender must also breifly explain WHAT they believe but not why.
2. My argument
2. Your rebuttal and counterargument.
3. My rebuttal and counterargument
3. Your rebuttal and counterargument
By accepting to debate me you will follow the rules listed above.
I believe that drugs should not be legalized except for certain drugs and under careful government regulation.
Thank you for your cooperation. :)
To summarize my current stance, Id like to make sure everyone understands that I believe there should still be slight regulations similar to those of alcohol. Also, making these substances legal does not mean it is a good idea to use them. Cigarettes for example are a legal substance and it is widely known that the health effects are mostly negative. I am eager to read your opinion. :)
Where I obtained my information (more graphs can be obtained through these links):
I will take a similar but more extreme thing as an example.
Taking hard drugs that many people will take such as heroin or cocaine will be comparable to suicide.
The definition of suicide is:
"the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally."
While drug use is not necessarily suicide, it is comparable to such because eventually, drugs will kill you weather it be lung cancer or overdose.
My point in making this is that the United States has legalized suicide, but not legalized assisted suicide, so in doing this the United States will contradict its own laws.
Thank you for your response, I will now begin to address the issues with your statements.
"Taking hard drugs that many people will take such as heroin or cocaine will be comparable to suicide."
Although this may be true, that does not mean it should be illegal. As a matter of fact, taking these drugs does not guarantee that your life will be demolished even though it is likely. Nicotine and Alcoholic substances are currently legal in many nations across the globe and you can over dose while consuming alcohol. When consuming nicotine some evidence suggests that your brain will end up requiring this substance to function efficiently (addiction). Not to mention, according to the definition you presented, this is NOT suicide because you are not intentionally taking your life when consuming drugs. Non the less, this is not a reason as to why some drugs should be illegal. I don't understand how it could be.
"While drug use is not necessarily suicide, it is comparable to such because eventually, drugs will kill you weather it be lung cancer or overdose."
This is not suicide and it does not matter if it is comparable to suicide. Accidentally killing yourself is NOT the equivalent of purposely killing yourself (suicide). Not to mention, the use of drugs does not cause lung cancer unless they are smoked. With this logic cigarettes should also be illegal and currently they are not. I am unsure what to state in order to combat this because it is not a realistic reason to make "some drugs" illegal and other drugs legal.
"My point in making this is that the United States has legalized suicide, but not legalized assisted suicide, so in doing this the United States will contradict its own laws."
The legalization of assisted suicide and suicide has absolutely nothing to with drug use and you have not provided any sufficient reason as to why these two things are related to drug use. People can overdose on drugs that have been legalized for medical purposes and in doing so would not make you a criminal, even if it did, that would have nothing to do with this debate. It is also not considered assisted suicide. Who would be considered responsible for this assisted suicide? The drug that did it? Would the drug be sent to prison for killing someone? Haha
Now I will begin to consider the morality of these issues.
I would like you to consider the point you made in your first argument about the dangers of busting drug dealers.
Unless the United States does not pose a tax on drugs like we did on tobacco, the illegal drug dealers will still have the power they used to because they still sell for the same, cheaper prices.
Secondly, the legalization of drugs would hurt the generation of kids. Children who are born after the legalization would be more exposed to drugs, and therefore more people would be addicted. Even if the children do not try drugs, studies have shown that drug use during pregnancy can lead to a decreased school results and unemployment when they grow up, which would cost the government money.
My last point would be that many drug users would eventually go to the government for help when they have diseases such as psychoses or lung cancer (which would be caused by smoking, but many drugs are smoked).
Thank you for clarifying who would be punished for the assisted suicide, although, this did not change anything I have posted about how that reasoning was illogical. I also noticed that for round 3 you did not attack my position for most of your argument, you added to your argument from round two.
Now it is time for my summary. For this I shall be defending my position which has been stated in round 2 and I will wrap up.
"Unless the United States does not pose a tax on drugs like we did on tobacco, the illegal drug dealers will still have the power they used to because they still sell for the same, cheaper prices."
I unfortunately could not comprehend what you stated in this sentence. It appears to me you were attempting to say that without regulation for these drugs people could sell for the same price if not cheaper. I do not however see how this is an issue because you failed to explain how it would be.
"Secondly, the legalization of drugs would hurt the generation of kids. Children who are born after the legalization would be more exposed to drugs, and therefore more people would be addicted."
This is not attacking my factual evidence from round two, you have added to your argument from round two. Because of this I will instead attack this statement. You have stated that more people would be addicted to drugs if they were legalized which is incorrect as shown in the I graph provided from round two which examined drug use in Portugal after the legalization. Children are also already exposed to drugs since they are a large part of crime. This is also not nessicarilly a bad thing, sometimes being exposed to certain things is a good thing so that you will be ready for the real world which is harsher than it appears as a child.
"Even if the children do not try drugs, studies have shown that drug use during pregnancy can lead to a decreased school results and unemployment when they grow up, which would cost the government money."
You failed to provide the studies for that research but in this case I shall assume this is correct (and it most likely is). This does not combat the fact that the legalization of drug use would not increase drug use according to the graph I provided in round 2 that examined drug use in Portugal after the decriminalization of all drugs. These events are occurring currently and as of now drug use is still illegal. Overall making something illegal would not fix it. This disproves your statement.
"many drug users would eventually go to the government for help when they have diseases such as psychoses or lung cancer"
How do you know? Where is your proof of this? I have already explained that the legalization of drug use would not increase the use of drugs and even if it did, there would be a very slight increase. Drug users already have the ability to do this and I don't really understand the meaning of this statement either. Psychoses is also not a disease, it is a mental disorder. Psychoses due to hallucinogens is also only temporary. ( More on psychoses can be found on this website http://www.healthline.com... )
Thank you for debating me, I have always wanted to debate this and I have learned a lot about this subject by doing so. Good luck!