The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

All drugs should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,464 times Debate No: 99182
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




We will be debating whether all drugs should be legal, and yes, I mean ALL drugs counting heroin, methamphetamine, you name it. I will take the PRO stance while my contender will be CON meaning you are against the legalization of all drugs. These are the requirements you must agree to before accepting the debate.

First Round: Accepting the debate and a brief summary of what you think should be legal regarding drug use.
Second Round: Why you believe your stance. NO REBUTTLE. Do NOT attack my argument on round two.
Third Round: Rebuttal, I will attack your argument and you will attack my argument.
Fourth Round (Conclusion): Explain why you believe you won the argument (If you think you did) and anything else that you would like to add. You CAN attack my rebuttal if you choose too.

1.) Stick to the topic do not start ranting about why you think I'm stupid.
2.) Make sure to show your sources through the use of links when presenting data.

That's about it and yes, these rules also apply to me. By accepting to debate me you are agreeing to these terms. Good luck!

My stance regarding legality:
Although I believe all drugs should be legal I do think there should be regulations. For example, I'd tax heroin heavily (probably a 50% state tax) and cannabis along with other lighter drugs would always need to be cheaper than harder drugs such as methamphetamine and heroin by about 1/2. There would also be an age restriction of 18 in the US. (or when you're legally an adult) Corporations would also need to present the REAL risks regarding every substance and they may not falsely advertise any of the harder substances, only their company.


Some drugs are too detrimental to society to be legalized. Highly addictive drugs can and do cause mass addictions, which in turn becomes a burden on taxpayers who have to invest more in rehabilitation programs and policing, not to mention the pain these drugs inflict on the families of addicts. The idea that, mass drug addiction can't be fixed, so just legalizing the offending drugs so it won't be a burden on taxpayers, is a myth. Drugs can be controlled, addicts can be rehabilitaded, and drug addiction can become less of a problem for society. Our current drug policy (assuming my apponent is in the United States) is ineffective. Instead of the catch and release policy we currently have for drug offenders, or just legalizing all drugs, I counter propose that repeat drug offenders be drafted into the military, not to be forcibaly made to go to war because that would be highly immoral, but a year long military training sentence would be highly effective in rehabilitating drug addicts. Not in a manner to punish the addicted, but to heal them of thier debilitating disease, because that is what it is, a disease. From a libertarian standpoint, one might try to argue that it is our right to privacy to do what we want to our bodies, but this argument doesn't hold much water when you consider how debilitating these drugs can be to all of society, and fankly, drug addictions rarely stay private.
Debate Round No. 1


Before I explain the reasoning behind my beliefs I would like to thank my opponent for taking an original stance regarding drug legalization and for accepting to debate me.

Illicit drug use has been relevant ever since the dawn of humanity and ever since drug use has been relevant, there have been attempts to restrict it. The majority of attempts have failed and as time progresses it appears as if drug use shall never be eliminated. I will be presenting why I think that all drugs should be legalized.

The first reason why I believe all drugs should be legal is that in a truly free country, you should be able to do what you wish regardless of whether people agree or disagree with your actions as long as no one is physically or legally effected. A common counter argument to this stance is that illicit drug use affects your loved ones and simply hurts their feelings. This, however, is flawed due to the fact that everyone has different feelings and reactions to certain events due to each individual having different brain chemistry. Personally, if my father or son decided to smoke cannabis I would not be emotionally affected because that is his choice. My neighbor, however, may have a different view and be strongly affected by it emotionally because he thinks it decreases productivity. This does not mean it should be illegal due to the fact that emotions should not regulate laws because they are irrelevant. I think mimes are intimidating, this does not mean they should be ban because again, my feelings are irrelevant. To summarize, I think drugs should be legal because the state should not mandate what I put in my body, I should, simply because it is my body. Not the states.

The second reason why I believe that drugs should be legal is that it increases the number of jobs and stimulates the economy. By legalizing marijuana the number of marijuana dispensaries has obviously increased. In Colorado, 10,000 jobs were made available just from legalizing the use of marijuana and are expected to increase by 700% over the next 5 years according to along with and which states there have been 25,000 jobs created. The result would be the same if LSD or heroin was legalized. Heroin needs people to grow it which creates more farming jobs and LSD along with MDMA needs intelligent chemists to synthesize it and purify it which would give intellectuals higher paying jobs. When these drugs are taxed it also can provide kids with a better education if the tax money is used effectively. The tax dollars could even be used to develop rehabilitation centers. The taxes placed on drugs could easily result in a lower-income tax or more social benefits/services. The economy is extremely vital to maintaining society.

The third reason for my stance is that by making drug use illegal, we have allowed organized crime to flourish and increased the amount of drug related deaths. Organized crime generally has one motive, money and money is easily obtained through selling highly potent drugs. For example, El Chapo obtained his riches by selling drugs and if drugs were made legal, his organized crime ring would be abolished due to lack of funding. El Chapo is responsible for the death of at least 70,000 people according to If drug use was legal, more than 70,000 lives would have been spared. Most likely millions because of other organized crime rings and miscellaneous drug deal related deaths. Drug overdoses are also more likely due to lack of knowledge and research regarding these compounds. After Portugal decriminalized all drugs the number of overdoses drastically decreased especially heroin which decreased by more than half according to and

My final reason is anti-drug laws surprisingly harm the environment. The Rare Cambodian Tree is refined into MDMA by drug traffickers and because of the drug restrictions, drug traffickers cannot and do not wish to replant the trees because they risk getting caught so instead, they cut them down and refine the logs into safrole oil which is then converted into MDMA. If drugs were legal these traffickers would not be endangering this tree because it would be replanted through environmental regulation. Chemicals used to make methamphetamine also harm the environment due to poor disposal caused by the illegality of the chemical precursors. Although this is fairly minor, I thought it would be interesting to present.

In conclusion, anti-drug laws have prevented economic growth and civil liberties that every individual should be entitled too. They have harmed the environment, caused unreasonable imprisonment and millions of deaths. The issue with society is not the drug users, it is the society itself which shames individuals for making their own choices whether it be for the better or worse.

Links + Sources:


I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate topic, and I wish You luck:)

When we think of opium dens, we probably automatically think of China. The opium trade in China, almost destroyed that country. The British, forced the drug onto the Chinese population (the poppy plant is actually native to Britain, it was imported to China). When the Chinese tried to outlaw opium, the British navy attacked them and forced them to continue the opium trade. This scurge of addiction brought the Chinese people to thier knees. It was deplorable, thier was no quality of life for these people, it was a broken society. It wasn't until the communists gained power before thier horrific tsunami of addiction ended. Mao's soldiers marched into the opium dens, dragged the occupents into the streets, and beat them to death, then went to thier homes and beat thier families to death. I would never condone that type of violence to curb an addiction, but like it or not, it was very effective. There are no longer opium dens in China due to the acts of the communists. The point I am tryng to make here is that, a mass addiction can strangle a society. I'm just as much a libertarian as the next guy, but I would not argue for a policy that could destroy our society. True, it is your business what you do with your body, but when your a parent who can no longer properly care for your children because of an addiction, then that's abuse, not freedom. When the parents of an addicted child are made to worry about the fact that their child is a junky, that's heart wrenching, not civil liberty. When the paramedic can't inject the narcan into the victim in time to save them, that's just another junky statistic, not inaliable rights. There are those who would argue that legalizing all drugs would cause less overdoses, but I would have to point out that policy only caused horror for the people of China.
Debate Round No. 2


"a mass addiction can strangle a society"
It's important to remember that the Opium Wars took place in the mid-1800"s when very little was known about drugs, especially in China where as you have stated, the plant is not native. Due to the lack of knowledge regarding the plant, addiction to it became rampant. In modern times the majority of the population is educated on the adverse effects of heroin along with other harmful narcotics. As I've stated, companies would not be legally allowed to produce propaganda relating to their products further protecting the general public from a mass addiction. Addiction to drugs is directly connected to poverty and lack of happiness. Generally, the quality of life for the citizens of first world nations and second world nations is better than those of China in the mid-1800"s. It is also important to remember that drug use would not increase if drugs were legalized (proven by my sources from round two) and it may even decrease as it has for Portugal. Due to these factors and many others, the chance of a mass addiction is extremely unlikely especially in a first world nation such as the US, UK, Germany etc.

"True, it is your business what you do with your body, but when your a parent who can no longer properly care for your children because of an addiction, then that's abuse, not freedom."

Freedom - the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Slavery - cause (someone) to lose their freedom of choice or action.

It's unintentional abuse and freedom. Once you turn 18 you are free from your parents and no longer need to do what they wish for you to do. No one should be enslaved by their parents.

"When the parents of an addicted child are made to worry about the fact that their child is a junky, that's heart wrenching, not civil liberty."
It's both, and they are not made to worry about their children being a junky. If everyone did what their parents wanted them to do, then we would be behind in scientific discovery. Isaac newton's parents wanted him to be a farmer and were disappointed when he chose to be a scholar. If he listened to them we wouldn't understand calculus, gravity and extremely basic physics. It's also important to remember that legalization doesn't increase usage. If I heard heroin was legal tomorrow, I wouldn't even think of running to the nearest head shop and buying pounds of heroin.

"When the paramedic can't inject the narcan into the victim in time to save them, that's just another junky statistic, not inaliable rights."
That happens despite drugs being illegal and legalization would not increase that. Individuals who choose to intake heroin are educated on the possible risks and understand the possibilities. Restricting someone's freedoms because you feel that it's wrong and you personally wouldn't do it is immoral.

"There are those who would argue that legalizing all drugs would cause less overdoses, but I would have to point out that policy only caused horror for the people of China."
According to the statistics in Portugal legalization, in fact, has caused a decrease in overdoses. As a matter of fact, they drastically decreased. The chance of a heroin overdose actually decreased by 50% after the legalization of small amounts of heroin. The reason for the results in China is the lack of knowledge regarding drugs and that would not be an issue for first world nations.


I'm sorry, but a drug addict who neglects or abuses thier children is not "unintentionally abus(ing)" thier children, they're just abusing them, and no one has the right to do that. My opponent even says "the majority of the population is educated on the adverse effects of heroin along with other harmful narcotics", in my opinion, that also goes for the drug addicted parent, who knows full well what they're doing, and the harm that drug can cause, and the harm that drug may cause them to inflict on others, so it is NOT unintentional abuse, it's just abuse. Lets break down the claim made by my opponent that the population is educated on the adverse effects of drugs. It is a true statement, but does that mean that anyone who is educated on the adverse effects of drugs, is not at risk of drug addiction? Of course not, if someone is injured at work, they might be prescribed a powerful painkiller, and that's where the addiction may begin. That could cause a fully grown adult, who is fully educated on the adverse effects of drugs, to become addicted, without choice. Also, there are those who try drugs in a purely recreational manner, and become addicted, they were educated on the adverse effects of drugs as well. I think my opponent is trying to claim that our society is safe from mass addiction because we're educated on the adverse effects of drugs, but we know that isn't true. Our society is in the grips of, not only one mass addiction, but several mass addictions of several different drugs. I apologize, but being educated about the adverse effects of drugs is of no consequence, in real life, or in this debate. Educated or not, people can still become addicted.

My opponent claims that "once you turn 18 you are free from your parents and no longer need to do what they wish", "no one should be enslaved by their parents". Umm, I'm not quit sure how to make a rebuttal against that, because I don't know what point my opponent is trying to make. True, when you turn 18, by law you are an adult, but if your parents are good parents, you will never be free from thier love and worry for you, and I'm not sure how this is relevant within the context of this argument. I invite my opponent to infuse some clarity into that statement.

I congratulate Portugal and it's initial success with thier drug policy, however I must point out that the drop in overdoses may not be solely tied to the decriminalization of drugs. Portugal transfered their drug policy away from law enforcement and gave it to thier health sector. They also began investing huge amounts of money into drug prevention, and treatment. They funded alternative drug vans, which drive around the cities, handing out free alternative drugs to anyone who wants them, and people line up to get the drugs that are meant to be an alternative to hard drugs. There is a huge pricetag on thier decriminalization policy, both in terms of taxes, and health costs, and it would be a shame if Portugal were to come into some kind of economic hardship and find themselves unable to afford the high cost of thier drug policy. If that happens, then they would find themselves right where they started. The spread of HIV has gone down in Portugal as well, but that is due to a nationwide needle exchange program. I live in a state with a needle exchange program, and we have had similiar results. Also, in my state, anyone who serves time in prison is required to learn how to properly prapare a needle and proper disposal methods, regardless of the crime that put them there. The drop in HIV rates in Portugal has nothing to do with the decriminalization of drugs, it's because of the needle exchange program. Like I've said before, I'm just as much a libertarian as the next guy, but if my taxes and health costs go up to help pay for expensive drug treatment programs, then I would consider that an infringment on my rights.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has broken the rules by attacking my rebuttal from round 3 which is supposed to take place on round 4. He was supposed to attack my round 2 arguments. I shall carry on despite this and defend my rebuttal while also attacking his rebuttal. In order to make the debate even do NOT attack or defend yourself from anything, I state in THIS round (round 4) besides my clarification for the second paragraph.

"I'm sorry, but a drug addict who neglects or abuses thier children is not "unintentionally abus(ing)" thier children, they're just abusing them, and no one has the right to do that"
I have never stated this in my rebuttal from round two nor has it been stated in round 2.

In response to the rest of my opponents first paragraph:
I believe you missed the point I was trying to make. Obviously just because you are educated on the effects of drugs that doesn't mean you won't become addicted. I was stating that because of the education addiction is far less likely than during the 1850"s. My argument is not whether drugs are safe, it's whether they should be legalized. In the second part of your paragraph, you state " I think my opponent is trying to claim that our society is safe from mass addiction because we're educated on the adverse effects of drugs" which was my argument, partially. I was stating that the chance of a mass addiction to that extent and just a mass addiction, in general, is very unlikely to be caused BY legalization or even increased. It's also far more unlikely to happen because we are aware of the negative effects unlike the Chinese in the 1850"s. My proof was Portugal.

In response to my opponent's second paragraph (You may attack this):
I was simply stating that once you are legally an adult, you do not need to do what your parents want. Therefore, there should be no law made to restrain an adults life in favor of her/his parents regardless of their feelings. Once you are an adult you are legally unbound from your parents. It does not matter if your parents approve of what you do. You should still be able to do it whether or not they approve. I'm aware that the majority of parents would be sad if you became a heroin addict but the majority of parents would also be sad if you became homeless. That doesn't mean being homeless should be illegal.

In response to my opponent's final paragraph:
First, I'm curious as to what state you live in because I've never heard of any American state that has those policies. Very intriguing, but of course you don't need too, I respect your privacy.

Anyways, by legalizing drug use drug policy would be removed from law enforcement right away and replaced by the health sector (If I could pick). Everything you've mentions that they did would happen when drugs were legalized but to a larger extent and without drug vans. Also, Ive stated that drugs would have a consumer tax which would eliminate the need for an increased income tax. Even if the math doesn't add up your taxes would increase by such an insignificant rate it would not affect you at all. You also provided no sources so I'm unsure as to how much money was invested in these programs but I'd assume very little since I found nothing about it on the web. Also, we would need no extra drug treatment centers as legalization is not connected to increased amounts of drug use.

Okay, time for my wrap-up. I believe you should vote for me because I provided data to back up my statements along with using sources. That"s about it since it's up to the voters to decide whose arguments were superior. Remember, whether you agreed with my opponent or me, make sure to vote for who you think had a stronger argument. Not who you agreed with.

I wish my opponent luck for when the voting commences. Thank you again for accepting to debate me. I certainly found this interesting and enjoyed it. :)


I would like to extend an apology to my opponent for my misunderstanding of the rules. I'd like to thank my opponent for such an interesting debate, and good luck.

Almost half of the states in the U.S. have some sort of needle exchange program, I think it's a very effective way to help curb the spread of disease.

Some questions I feel any potential judge of this debate should ask themselves before judging (if anyone does, because it doesn't seem like anyone judges on debates anymore)

*Did my opponent show how legalizing all drugs could benefit society?
*Did my opponent convince you that legalizing all drugs would not be detrimental to society?
*Did my opponent truly convince you that it is our right as citizens to take any drug we feel fit to take, regardless of the hazards involved?

I feel that my opponent didn't even bother to address any benefits the legalization of drugs could have for society. I can't say that I blame my opponent though, that is a very difficult idea to convince people of, because I can't think of any real beneffits that it could have.

I feel my opponents entire argument hinges on the drug policy of another country.

I feel my opponent is trying to argue that we should legalize all drugs, regardless of the risks invoved, because our government can't tell us what we can and can't do to our bodies. That argument is problematic as well, because it's almost like my opponent is arguing from the standpoint of some guy who lives in a cabin deep in the woods, and his drug use wouldn't effect anyone, which is true, but this country isn't only made up of creepy hairy dudes in Montana who like to argue with trees. Our country is made up of students, and parents, and doctors, and etc........., and legalizing drugs could tare the fabric of society that these people make up.

Some other questions to ask yourself as a potential judge is.

*If your next door neighbor is a parent, and addicted to an illegal drug, would it be logical to just legalize that drug for the benefit of that parent?
*If you live in a city with a large population of homeless people, who may or may not have access to quality heathcare, or drug programs, would it benefit them to make all drugs legal?
*If your the parent of a smart, vibrant college kid, who has the potential to be successful, not only financially, but academically, and happy, but you just found a syringe in thier wallet while washing thier clothes. Would you want all drugs to be legal, or would you try to find help for that child?

The above link is just some food for thought. It is an interesting article on Portugals drug policy. I implore you to read the ENTIRE article.

In closing, I'd like to feed you some food for thought. If all drugs were made legal, I don't think the rate of addiction or overdoses would go down, unless we invested huge amounts of money in drug prevention, and treatment programs, which could be a strain on our healthcare system. I will concede that our current drug policy, and situation is deplorable. I offered an alternative treatment policy, which would be to sentence repeat drug offenders to a military sentence, not for the sake of punishment, but for the sake of an effective treatment. NOT to draft them, so not to force them to to go to war, but I wonder
how many of them would willfully serve after their life has been turned around by a fierce drug treatment program. Extreme yes, but just thinking outside the box.

I would like to thank YOU the reader for your interest in our little debate, and if you have voting privileges, PLEASE vote on this one. Now Imma go smoke a blunt, because it's legal in my state:). PEACE!!!!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: While pro did make OK arguments, specifically the El Chapo one; con made better arguments, such as explaining what mass addictions can do to a nation.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to do more than simply state which side they thought was better and point to arguments made by both debaters. It must be clear why, given the arguments the voter assesses, they decided to vote the way they did. Merely stating what each side said and saying that one was stronger for unknown reasons is not sufficient to award argument points.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Thank You, and good luck.
Posted by Badplum25 1 year ago
If it pertains to your last arguement then its fine if you post it. Ill allow that.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Unforunetaly, I don't knw how to properly post a link, but you can highlight the stuff above, and read a very interesting artical on Portugals drug policy. Whether you would let me post it or not, I don't plan on mentioning anything about Portugal anyway. It only pertains to my last argument. Thnx.
Posted by Badplum25 1 year ago
Hello Smooosh, Unfortunately, I would have an issue with you posting a link about Portugal only because its round four and I would not be able to post a rebuttal about it. I'll allow it as long as it's not a new argument. Could you PM it to me or post it in the comments? I'd like to check it out.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Sorry about the rebuttal misunderstanding, I misread the rules. Would you have a problem with me posting a link on an artical about Portugal, or is that out of bounds? 'et me as soon as you can, and thank you for such an interesting debate. Peace.
Posted by Smooosh 1 year ago
Sorry about the rebuttal misunderstanding, I misread the rules. Would you have a problem with me posting a link on an artical about Portugal, or is that out of bounds? 'et me as soon as you can, and thank you for such an interesting debate. Peace.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ChadIrvin 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better arguments to support his case, His argument about what addictions can do to a society was the deciding factor for my vote.