The Instigator
JorgeLucas
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

All drugs should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 3 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,618 times Debate No: 25829
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

JorgeLucas

Pro

The government should not enforce any laws banning drugs.
First round is acceptance.
Burden of proof is on me to show why drugs should be legalized.
THEBOMB

Con

I accept! I hope that this will be a productive and intellectual debate!
Debate Round No. 1
JorgeLucas

Pro

Before I begin my arguments, keep in mind that I myself do not do drugs, and am not arguing from the perspective of someone who wants drugs legal just so that he or she can be more irresponsible with them. And now for my arguments:

1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights
The responsibility of the government, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the act of taking drugs, nobody's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness has been violated. In fact, the user has taken advantage of his rights. He has the liberty to do anything as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. So he does drugs. He also takes advantage of his right to the pursuit of happiness, since drugs make him happy. That's why people take them. And while I myself wouldn't make such a decision, it does not harm anyone, and should not be illegal.

2. The failure of prohibition
In 1920, the government made alcohol illegal. The thinking was that people would be healthier, and alcohol-related crime would go down. It failed horribly. Alcohol was readily available anyway, but it was no longer controlled by respectable businessmen. It was run by the mafia. Organized crime rose in power, to brew alcoholic beverages and protect other brewers, since the government wouldn't. One man that rose out of prohibition was Al Capone, arguably the most infamous gangster of all time. In 1933, the government realized they had made a horrible mistake, and prohibition ended. While the drugs we are discussing in this debate are more dangerous that alcohol, on a philosophical level there is no difference. We are making the same mistakes, and pretending we are helping people.

3. More power to gangs/cartel
As I mentioned in my last argument, prohibition gave rise to the mafia. The War on Drugs has given rise to something else: the Mexican drug cartel. In Mexico, the Mexican drug war has various cartels fighting each other and the Mexican government, in what is basically an all-out war. The cartels make an estimated 39 billion dollars annually. The cartel does not stick to Mexico, however. A drug known as black tar heroin has made its way into the U.S. black market due to the cartel. The cartels are known to recruit in American high schools. A 14 year old from San Diego was turned into an assassin by the cartel. If drugs are legalized, the cartel will be obsolete, as legitimate companies will be able produce and sell drugs. The competition will no longer be the violence we have today, but businesses responding to the needs of consumers in an attempt to make a greater profit than their competitors. This is evidenced in the alcohol industry by Miller and Budweiser, for example.

4. Users cannot be helped if they were scammed
Let's say somebody wants to get some drugs. They find a dealer, make the deal, and discover that the drugs are much less potent that what they were told. Maybe it was a simple mistake on the part of the dealer, or maybe it was fraud. In the world of legal products, One could go and get a refund if it was a simple mistake. If it was fraud, however, the customer might have to sue whoever sold them a faulty product. But in the world of illegal drugs, one couldn't sue their dealer. If they did, they would announce to the government that they went and bought an illegal substance. And then they will likely go to jail. Is it fair that somebody would have to face legal punishment just because they wanted to report fraud? Of course not. And if drugs were legal, this problem would cease to exist.

Sources:
http://www.cato.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
THEBOMB

Con

Thank you for your arguments.I look forward to this debate.


I will go through each of my opponents arguments.

1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights

Here my opponent asserts the role of the government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Drugs and alcohol represent a domestic enemy simply because they cause harm to the user, to other individuals, and, ultimately, to society. Government ensures that we are safe. When delegating power to a central authority, the people are giving up their right of self defense. Under the social contract, one gives up certain rights to form a stable society, one of your duties as being a member of society is to, in certain cases, give up your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community…to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it" (1). Widespread drug use and drug production destabilizes society, "the emergence of a drug economy can result in the destabilization of the state, the political system, the economy and civil society." (2) To preserve society, under the social contract, one MUST be willing to give up their right to harm themselves for the preservation of society. Either that, or drug users must remove themselves from society. Since many people are unwilling to perform their societal duty; the government holds the responsibility of preserving society and illegalizing drugs to preserve the state, which, in the end, benefits all of us.

2. The failure of prohibition

Here my opponent makes many blanket statements about prohibition. I mean during Prohibition alcohol use declined 30-50%, deaths from cirrhosis fell, between 1911 and 1929, from 29.5 deaths to 10.7 deaths per 100,000, alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 in 1919 to 4.7 per 100,000, suicides decreased 50%, and alcohol related arrests dropped 50%. Prohibition was an achievement when it comes to the field of public health (3). My opponent mentions organized crime saying that alcohol led to the organization of crime and smuggling rings, but quite honestly, much of the reason for this rise to power was because of the inability of the government to enforce its own laws. Furthermore, my opponent asserts that organized crime began in the United States solely because of prohibition. Let's be honest, the mafia are directly linked to crime in the United States since the 1800s (4) and the mafia were heavily involved in the organization of labor unions, casinos, rackeetering, among many other things. Quite honestly, the illegalization of alcohol gave one buisness to the mafia. But, due to the fact the mafia was present in the United States regardless of the legality or illegality of alcohol means they would have been involved in these other, seemingly legitamate, ventures. A criminal organization will find ways to survive unless forced to stop through imprisonment and/or death.

3. More power to gangs/cartel

My opponent holds that since the War on Drugs illegalized drugs, this caused the drug cartels to rise. But, my opponent misses one causal link, the users. The only reason the drug cartels have power is because people buy their product. If no one bought their product, they would have no income. Thus, they would have no power. Since legalizing drugs increases drug use, which for reasons mentioned above would be bad for society as a whole, illegalizing drug use would be the best option. Between 1979 and 1992, drug use was dropping exponentially. When Bill Clinton was elected president he slashed to office of Drug Control Policy by 80%, dropped the war on drugs from 3rd priority to 29th out of 29, and cut the number of ships and aircraft responsible for drug interdiction 50%. Drug use by children ages 12-17 increased 106% as a direct result. (5) This rate has been on a slow decline ever since. Drug use overall, dropped exponentially due to increased drug prevention efforts (6, 7). I would hope my opponent would agree that a society of non drug users would be better than a society of drug users simply due to lost productivity as well as other factors (societies destablization, etc.)

4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed.

Let's be honest, my opponent's entire contention is based upon the fact that a dealer might sell a product that is "much less potent that what they were told." Let us clear one thing up, without an objective measure of what constitutes a "good high" (something that is good to one person may be bad to another), how can we say for certain that it was good or bad? In other words, you cannot return food (or get a refund) to a supermarket because it was not what you expected it would be or it did not taste good enough. My opponent has not provided a clear cut definition of what would consitute fraud in this regard. Unless you plan on sueing them for health problems that arise from drug use. Quite honestly, that is like sueing McDonalds because you got fat from their products. Drugs cause health issues.

1.http://constitution.org...
2. http://www.incb.org...;
3. Mark S. Gold, The Good News About Drugs and Alcohol (New York: Viliard Books, 1991).
4. http://www.crimemuseum.org...;
5. http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org...;
6. http://archives.drugabuse.gov...;
7. http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
JorgeLucas

Pro

Thank you for supplying me with intelligent rebuttals. Now for my re-rebuttals!

1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights
The reason civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies is to protect the rights of the citizens. If enemies did not threaten the rights of citizens, there would be nothing to defend or protect the citizens from.
Drugs harm the user, but they do not inherently harm other individuals or society. People do that when they are not responsible with their drug use, and drugs are not responsible for what people do. Banning drugs because some people commit crimes while under their influence is like banning cars because some people die in collisions.
You claim that as a member of society, it is one's duty to give up rights for the benefit of society. As a member of society, you do have to cooperate for the benefit of yourself and society, but to give up your rights, you get nothing in return, and frankly neither does anybody else. And while it might be good to risk your rights sometimes, forcing someone to just part with their rights is unethical, and not the basis for a moral society.
You say that the emergence of a drug economy would destroy society, but what you fail to realize is that a drug economy already exists. It is comprised of gangs, shady dealers, cartels, secret transactions, etc... This is not the basis for a stable economy, which in turn is not the basis for a stable society. If this economy was legal, however, the drug economy would stabilize because it would be run by legitimate businesses, and thus society would stabilize.

2. The failure of prohibition
While prohibition may have somewhat helped public health, as evidenced by your numbers, your most important statistic is not all that impressive. Meaning, if alcohol use declined 30-50%, that isn't even half of what prohibition tried to do. This is not a success.
Organized crime did exist before prohibition. However, you act as though the prohibition of alcohol was just another little thing the mafia was in charge of. The simple fact is that it wasn't. Prohibition made organized crime much bigger. Al Capone, who I brought up earlier, would certainly not have because as powerful as he did had he not become involved in illegal alcohol. "Capone was earning $60 million a year from alcohol sales alone. Other rackets earned him an extra $45 million a year." Because of his dealings in alcohol, Capone made well over double the profits he would have made otherwise, and even that is generous, as he might not have made those $45 million from other 'services' if he was not known for alcohol. These profits prove that alcohol was much more that just another thing the mafia did. It was huge, accounting for well over half of the most infamous gangster's profit.

3. More power to gangs/cartel
It is true that if users stopped buying drugs, the cartels would have no power. Unfortunately, however this is not realistic. You believe that if drugs are kept illegal, the profits of the cartels are at least limited. But their 39 billion dollar profit certain indicates otherwise. You go on to say that legalizing drugs would make more people buy drugs from the cartels. While more people would buy drugs, they would not buy from cartels. They would buy from their local drugstore, or whoever else sells drugs legitimately, and in turn destroy the profits of cartels.
In your next section of statistics, you first bring up the exponential decline between 1979 and 1992. My hypothesis for why this is is fear. People were simply afraid to be arrested, faced with severe consequences. The drug war was priority 3 out of 29, after all. While you might say that the lower use of drugs was good, fear is no way to run a society. Societies are built on trust and cooperation. Fear only leads to distrust and betrayal.
Your next statistic is the sharp increase in drug use when Clinton made the war on drugs a lower priority, and the slow decline that subsequently followed. My guess is that people initially all experimented with drugs because they would not be as likely to be caught or as severely punished. But after the initial surge, they realized that drugs weren't for them, and stopped. If this logic were applied to full legalization, chances are there would be an initial spike in drug use, which would then get progressively less. Perhaps the rate would even go down beyond the current rate, as the 'cool factor' of doing something illegal is now gone.
Finally, I agree that a society of non-users would be better. I would hope that you realize, however, that this is an unrealistic, utopian ideal, and it would never be possible.

4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed
It is clear that my example wasn't good enough, which I suppose I can't deny. Maybe a better example would be safety. A dealer could market his drug as completely safe, but in reality the drug is incredibly dangerous. This would be considered fraud, and any victims of this fraud would not be able to receive legal help, even though they were victims, not offenders. I hope this is better than my last example. What I'm really getting at is that if one is a victim, they cannot testify against their offender as long as drugs are illegal.
At the end of your paragraph, though, your argument is actually detrimental to your own case. The core of your argument is that drugs should be banned because they cause health problems, which contribute to societal problems like lack of productivity. By this logic, why not ban McDonalds. McDonalds causes health problems, and on the societal level leads to the obesity epidemic, which in turn leads to lower productivity and higher death rates. Why should one unhealthy product be banned but the other left alone?

Source:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
THEBOMB

Con

Thanks for this debate :)

1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights

My opponent begins by stating the reason that civil servants take an oath, and he is correct. My opponent is correct in this regard, if there were no enemies, there would be nothing to protect against. The purpose of the oath of office is to ensure that civil servants will uphold the Constitution and from that "establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." The point is, the federal government is concerning itself with collective rights, not individual rights. This is why murder is generally not prosectued under federal law, but rather state law. Unless that murder has something to do with collective security (ie, the killing of the president affects more than just the individual, it affects the nation.) The Framers never denied that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, the Federal Government concerns itself with protecting the rights of the collective people. The Federal Government deals with society as a whole, not just individuals. The states and municipalites are left to protect the individual.

From there, we must ask if it is in the interest of the collective for the Federal Government to legalize drugs. My opponent says yes because while he does not deny the truth of the claim that the emmergence of a drug economy destablizes and eventually destroys an economy, he asserts that since the drug economy already exists underground, legalizing drugs would stabilize the drug economy which in turn would further stabilize society. It is a logical conclusion, but my opponent fails to show how the stablization of the drug economy would stablize society. In order to provide this causal link, we must look within and outside the United States. In 1919 to 1922, the Federal Government handed out free drugs to drug addicts in order to control their behavior. The effor failed simply because it failed. Furthermore, when California, Oregon, and Alaska attempted to decriminalize/legalize marijuana in the 1970s, DUIs increased exponentially and drug use was doubled. (1) Look at the Netherlands, "The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey." (1) "Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent." (1) It is immediatley evident that legalization has only increased property crime in European countries. That is not in the interst of the collective by any means. An increase in theft and property damage does not stabilize society by any means.

2. The Failure of Prohibition

The point of prohibition was to decrease alcohol useage. It succeeded. My opponent has conceeded all statistics to that regard that it was a success when it came to public health issues. I also would like to point out that my opponent asserts that prohibition made organized crime much larger, and then uses one, while large and infamous, gangster to make his point. Simply basing your entire case on the earnings of one man seems rather flimsy. No matter how infamous Al Capone may be, he is still just one man.

3. More power to gangs/cartel


The legalization of drugs creates market niches. Since undoubtedly there would be restrictions (age, occupation, etc) on who could buy these drugs, those excluded from the legal market would turn to the drug cartels. Who thus, would still exist. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that the legal market for drugs would just pop up over night due to legalization. But, the majority of "hard" drugs such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, crack, etc are used in poorer communites where crime is already present. It's a generally accepted fact that drugs, poverty, and crime all go hand in hand. Even legalizing drugs will not immediatley bring buisness into areas in which most buisness had already left. In poorer areas of crime ridden cities such as Newark, Trenton, and Washington DC, legalizing drug will not correlate with larger buisnesses going into those areas wtihout raising their operating costs. My opponent is making the implicit assertion that this buisness will go to these areas, which are controlled by drug cartels as well as other gangs. Bottom line, my opponent has not supported this assertion.

In response to my statistics, my opponent's hypothesis as to why drug use declined was out of fear. Yet, quite simply, this is how the criminal justice system works. What my opponent calls "fear" criminologists would call a detterent. People are dettered from doing X due to punishment Y. This is quite simply the basis of the United States criminal justice system. It has worked in dettering people from using drugs, which, is good according to both my opponent and myself. My opponent also said that the change in policy caused a sharp increase in drug use followed by a decline but, we must keep in mind that even during Clinton's presidency, there were still punishments in place for drug use and drug "dealing." Drugs were not legalized or decriminalized by any degree, it is just less resources were put towards drug interdiction and drug prevention rates. Thus, more drugs flowed into the United States, more people bought and used drugs. In the end, my opponent agrees that a society of non-users would be best, but while it may be an unrealistic ideal, shouldn't we adopt the policy which has shown to be most effective at decreasing drug use which is a prohibition on drugs?

4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed

My opponent changes his hypothetical to assert that a dealer could market their drug as safe while in reality it is incredibly dangerous. My opponent never shows where this marketing is happening. I don't turn on the television and see advertisments for "perfectly safe" cocaine. Also, why would a drug dealer even go down that path and open up questions as to why they are advertising their product and whether it is really safe or not? The reality is, this entire hypothetical is not based in reality.

If my opponent wishes to assert that the users are victims, then how can they both argue this and that drug use is connected to a person's right to liberty? In light of my opponent's other philisophical arguments, this one seems to contradict the others.

My opponent argues that since other unhealthy products are legalized this should lead to the legalization other unhealthy products. How does this make sense? If good A, B, and C are all unhealthy. A is illegal. B and C are legal, should the government legalize A simply because B and C are legal? It makes no sense to legalize more unhealthy goods which will lead to more lost productivity.


1. http://www.sarnia.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
JorgeLucas

Pro

Since this is my closing statement, my rebuttals will be shorter than usual. I will just touch on a few points that my opponent makes.

1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights
My opponent discusses collective rights and individual rights, but what are collective rights without individual rights? They are nothing. A collective merely a sum of individuals. Collective rights are merely the sum of everyone's individual rights. If anyone's individual rights are violated for the collective, collective rights are violated just as much as individual rights.
The Federal government should never have handed out drugs to addicts. My whole point is that the government needs to step away from the drug issue, and using taxpayer money to hand out free drugs is just the opposite.
The property crimes were done by people. Not drugs. Why should innocent drug users be punished for the actions of true criminals? They shouldn't and it is ridiculous that they would. Later on, you go to say that poverty and crime go hand in hand. By the logic you use here, we should therefore ban poverty, whatever that means. And that would of course be ridiculous and stupid.

2. The Failure of Prohibition
Al Capone may have been one man, but he ran a giant operation. Thus, the people he 'employed' also were made wealthier through prohibition. And since Capone's organization was made so powerful by alcohol trading, logically the other mobs would have seen this and followed suit.

3. More power to gangs/cartel
If the drugs were legalized, the gangs would no longer have to work in the black market, and would become legitimate very quickly. A legitimate business will always do better than a black market business because it can put its name into the public without risking any trouble with the law. Basically, business doesn't have to appear overnight, because it is already there. And if drugs were legal, much of the illegal trade would simply shift into legitimacy.
These deterrents only work on small-time recreational users. They don't work on people who commit crimes for the crimes for the challenge, they encourage. They don't deter addicts, because all that matters to an addict is drugs. Nothing else matters. Since crime is a huge problem, especially in major cities, perhaps the basis for the criminal justice system is broken. Deterrents have shown to be ineffective against the real targets.
While a society of non-users would be better than a society of users, a society of rights"individual and collective"is better than an unrealistic utopia.

4. Users cannot be helped if they are scammed
You don't see advertisements for cocaine because cocaine is illegal, and anyone marketing it publicly would be arrested. The drug dealer would take the path for the same reason as anyone else who commits fraud: stealing money from the people who couldn't know any better.
What contradiction? I'm not saying drug users are victims. I'm saying people who are scammed are victims.
The argument does make sense because the government shouldn't prioritize what unhealthy products are illegal. It opens up a ton of philosophical questions. Where should the line be drawn between healthy and not healthy enough for legality? When can exceptions be made? And if you want to talk about lost productivity, the police could be a lot more productive if they didn't waste their time on drugs.

5. Nobody cares about New Jersey
My U.S. history teacher likes to talk about how nobody cares about New Jersey. Considering this, why would you make so many references in your argument to Trenton and Newark? NOBODY CARES ABOUT NEW JERSEY!!!

In conclusion, I thought this was an excellent debate. My opponent was able to provide me with real, intellectual, valid arguments, as opposed the over-emotional, illogical garbage that a part of me was expecting. However, he did say some stuff didn't make a whole lot of sense, such as the cocaine advertisement argument. So don't forget to Vote Pro 2012, because if you do, I will legalize drugs.
THEBOMB

Con

Thank you for this great debate :)

1. Taking drugs does not violate rights

PRO begins by making an assertion that is philisophically wrong. Seeing how PRO never refuted the idea that the Constitution and the federal government protects the collective, he acts under the framework I set to try to mitiagte the effects of the argument. PRO misinterprets the meaning of collectivism. By definition, it focuses itself on the "community, society, or nation." (1) To put it simply, if the federal government was concerning itself with individual rights, murder would be considered a federal crime (as murder violates someone's right to life.) But, only murder's of ambassadors and other members of the government fall under federal jurisdiction. This is simply because, the murder of the president affects national security, not just individual security. States protect individual rights, the federal government protects the collective. While the collective may be made up of people with rights, the federal government only concerns itself with protecting collective rights. "General welfare" is in the consitution. "Individual welfare" is not.

PRO writes (in response to the Netherlands point) "the property crimes were done by people. Not drugs." You are right, the crimes were done by people. They were committed by people to get money for drugs. The drug users committed these crimes. At least that is what the statisitics show. No, I stated that "drugs, poverty, and crime all go hand in hand." (Round 3). You are right, If I am not mistaken, my opponent has conceeded this point and wishes to reduce drug use, poverty, and crime. Since, we have shown a positive correlation between an increase in crime and drug legalization, what reaon do we have to legalize drugs? None. Furthermore, since legitamate buisnesses normally do not act in crime ridden areas, why would we want to increase crime thus driving legitamate businesses away, thus causing more poverty?

2. Failure of Prohibition

PRO has dropped all points about public health. Since my opponent merely asserts is is logical to assume that since "Capone's organization was made so powerful by alcohol trading, logically the other mobs would have seen this and followed suit." But, this is unsubstantiated by any source. Couldn't we also assume that since Al Capone became so powerful, other organizations would be dettered from getting into the alcohol trade thus leaving Capone all the buisness? I mean that is a logical, unsubstantiated argument as well. Both, if just relying on logic, are equally as valid.

3. More Power to Gangs/cartels

My opponent argues that cartels would no longer have to work under ground if drugs were legalized, thus the buisness is already there. But, like my opponent stated above, these are very dangerous organizations. My opponent assumes they would adapt to a free and open market no problem at all. Quite honestly, how does legalizing drugs make them any less dangerous? They are dangerous, no doubt about it, but legalization will not remove the cartels, since legalization hurts their profits, so would these cartels not resist, on a large scale in order to keep prices up so they can get a profit? Quite simply, PRO makes the baseless argument that cartels would adapt to a free, competitive market without any problems.

PRO says detterents fail. He justifies this argument by asserting that since crime is a problem, the Criminal Justice System is failing. But, crime has been declining, not rising, so there is no reason to believe deterents don't work.

PRO holds that a realistic society of rights is better than an unrealistic utopia. I held that the United States should hold the policy that is most effective at decreasing drug use, bringing us closer to a utopia. Should we not strive for the "perfect" society that my opponent and I both agree upon?

4. Users cannot be helped.

First, my opponent claims there is a market for illegal drugs and the dealers are marketing them as perfectly safe. They never show where the dealer would be marketing in the first place. No drug dealer would advertise their product as perfectly safe or anything for that matter. They are not going to commit complete fraud, because then you won't come back, you will find another dealer. My opponent has shown no evidence of anyone being scammed, thus the entire argument is not based in reality.

PRO argues against my statement that "If good A, B, and C are all unhealthy. A is illegal. B and C are legal, should the government legalize A simply because B and C are legal? It makes no sense to legalize more unhealthy goods which will lead to more lost productivity." By stating this opens a pandora's box of philosophical questions. I never once asserted there was a line "between healthy and not healthy enough for legality." All I pointed out was that if 3 things are unhealthy, why should you legalize another unhealthy thing? That is it. My opponent never answers my question. And tries to avoid it. But, if your basis of legalization or illegalization is centered around healthiness, then why legalize another thing which is detrimental to the human body? No matter how detrimental it may be. PRO then asserts the police could be more productive if drugs were legal. This is true, simply because there would be more crime if drugs were legal.

5. Nobody cares about Jersey xD

I am pretty sure that I only made one reference to Trenton and Newark. And a lot of people care about Jersey...I mean I know people from Jersey and I live right across the river from Trenton. A member of the gang the Bloods once showed up at a party I was at. I got out of there pretty quickly xD


Thank you very much for this debate. :)


1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by babyy 4 years ago
babyy
Hello dear, my name is Ester, i came across your profile now.So I decided to stop by an let you know that I really want to have a good friendship with you. Beside i have something special i want to discuses with you, but I find it difficult to express myself here, since it's a public site. I will be very happy, If you can get back to me, through my e-mail iD(esteredmond(at )ymail.c o m)
Posted by mark23456 4 years ago
mark23456
Whether you do not like drugs or you do everyone should have the freedom of choice to decide whether they want to or not.Noone should control your body but yourself.
Posted by Kevert 4 years ago
Kevert
Drugs should all be legal. I've done enough research on the topic. What is key, is how it is controlled, regulated and distributed.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
@Jorge, I am too lazy to change some of them, and I might as well keep it on Drug Legalization since I am for Marijuana legalization.
Posted by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
Burden of proof updated because THEBOMB is right and I have BOP
Posted by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
THEBOMB: my thinking is that things are legal by default, and need a reason to be illegal. I would like for my opponent to provide that reason. However, if you are interested in being my opponent but believe I have BOP, I should have no problem, as I understand why I might.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
How would BOP be on me if you're the one making the positive assertion that goes against current laws?
Posted by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
But on your issues it says that you are for drug legalization. What's up with that?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I might take this, it is profoundly easy to argue against full drug legalization.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
JorgeLucasTHEBOMBTied
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: Pro failed to uphold his BOP. Con showed the increase in deaths from legalization and increased usage would not benefit society in any way, and greatly outweigh any benefits. Con also showed the black market wouldn't go away and an increase in crime would occur (as most drugs are bought by teens, the black market would hardly shrink). Win to con.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
JorgeLucasTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very well done debate. Both sides had great conduct, and good sources.
Vote Placed by Frarf 4 years ago
Frarf
JorgeLucasTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very well done debate. Both sides had great conduct, and good sources.