The Instigator
Yehonathan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 889 times Debate No: 59092
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Yehonathan

Pro

This is my first debate, so I apologize in advance if I accidentally break any rules. :)
I am NOT arguing that people should not be discouraged from using drugs.

1.Drug use is a victimless crime; people should be allowed to put what they want in their bodies.

2.Legalizing drugs would save people from going to prison.

3.Legalizing drugs would make it so that people can buy high quality drugs, and have the proper dosages so they don't hurt themselves as much.

4.The money from legalizing drugs, and from not wasting it on stopping people from getting drugs, could be used for more important things.

5.If drugs are legal it becomes easier to get funding for research on them, which may eventually lead to drugs without negative side effects.

(1)http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...
(This link also has some ideas for con, which I'm going to try to address now.)

1.The legalization of drugs would increase use, lead to more experimentation by youth, and exacerbate the existing deleterious effects that drugs have on society.

The thing is, people that are bad enough to need drugs can already access alcohol and cigarettes. Many currently illegal drugs are less harmful, and might even work as replacements, which could easily outweigh the negative effects of the few that might start on the "hard" drugs.

2.They are of the opinion that government subsidization of addicts would have crippling effects on the economy.

But now that money would be going to help the drug users, instead of sending them to prison.

3.They also feel that legalization would help to create a large black market for drugs.

There already IS a large black market for drugs. If a legal source became available, why would people go to the risk of getting drugs from an illegal source?

4.Drug dealers and hardcore addicts would not suddenly become productive, law-abiding members of society. Dealers will still be involved in crime and violence and that users will still need to support themselves by engaging in criminal activity.

If the drug dealers lose their customers, there is a possibility that they'll just give up on illegal work on become productive members of society. If not, they just find some other illegal work. No gain, but no loss either.
The users will buy their drugs from legal sources or they'll stay with the illegal source. Possible gain, no possible loss. Also, if drugs become legal, it will be easier to find rehab and they might become productive.

5.Basically, they believe that the legalization of drugs would lead to increases, not reductions, in crime because there would be more addicts and because of the aforementioned black market.

I've already addressed the concerns of the possible black market, so I'll focus on more addicts.
First of all, if all drugs become legal, people will know exactly what's in their drugs and the proper dosages, so they'll be less likely to become hooked. Also, since people could freely talk about their drug use, they could find better ways to deal with their addiction. Especially since people could help them completely give it up.

6.Statistics show that drug prevention initiatives, drug awareness curricula in schools, and drug treatment programs are working. They point to the fact that there are fewer addicts today than there were 20 years ago.

And that is wonderful! And legalizing drugs will have no effect on those programs. Actually, more money could be spent on those programs after it stops being wasted on sending people to prison.
Preston

Con

So its cool you came up with arguments for me but that's not the route im going, your resolution clearly states "All drugs" That means every single drug should be able to be used for "recreational use", so instead of bringing up issues with legalization, I will bring up specific drugs that are not legal now for recreational use, and should never be. And since you as AFF hold the Burden of Proof, you must prove "All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use." if even one drug shouldn't be legalized then you haven't proven ALL DRUGS, thus you cannot win.

1) Desomorphene (Krokodil)

Desomorphene is a drug composed of Codeine, gasoline, paint thinner, hydrochloric acid, iodine and red phosphorous from matchstick heads, it provides a high that masks pain. However it has extremely drastic results; it rots the skin off your body while you are alive and awake.

Forbes reports "What makes this drug so exceptionally strange, however, is that once injected it begins eating the user’s body from the inside out, causing blood vessels to burst and surrounding tissue to die. Essentially a corrosive acid with opiate effects, krokodil destroys body tissue the way battery acid eats through plastic, opening large sores that can go all the way to the bone."[http://www.forbes.com...] (I went to get photos and nearly threw up; DO NOT GOOGLE KROKODIL)


2) Morphine
We all know what morphine is, its highly addictive and very effective. but legalizing it for recreational use is a terrible idea, recent studies show that morphine, when used regularly, will actualy degrade your bones. That means taking morphine can lead to bone loss, severe pain, and in time death.

the national library of medicine conducted a series of experiments and reported that morphine "accelerated sarcoma-induced bone destruction and doubled the incidence of spontaneous fracture in a dose- and naloxone-sensitive manner. Morphine increased osteoclast activity and upregulated IL-1Ã"² within the femurs of sarcoma-treated mice suggesting enhancement of sarcoma-induced osteolysis. These results indicate that sustained morphine increases pain, osteolysis, bone loss, and spontaneous fracture, as well as markers of neuronal damage in DRG cells and expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines"
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

3. Now I will address your points.

A.) Leglizing drugs leads to a more widely used product, while individuals may have gotten high at parties, they generally do not provide their own drug. that means legalization will provide them with the way to get their hands on it, if we allow ALL DRUGS to become widely assessable for recreational purposes our death rate increases.

B.) We wont be spending it helping them if we have to spend it burying them because their flesh rotted away.

C.) When you allow a low quality drug to be mass produced drugs even stronger, more dangerous, and addictive appear on the black market.

D.) There is 0% chance that someone abiding below the law would suddenly decide to follow the law. The mafia is a prime example, they were created when alcohol was banned and they still exist, killing just as many as ever.

E.)look at D.

F.)The reason why drug initiatives exist is because they are illegal, when meth and acid were legal in the 80's schools didn't fight them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that youre new so let me give you some tips for next time:

1) Be careful how you phrase your resolution

2) dont form arguements for your opponent, you should state your own arguements.

3) if you want to refute the opponents views you should go neg, then have them go first and skip thier last turn.

4) dont get worked up over anything, DDO has alot of trolls.
Debate Round No. 1
Yehonathan

Pro

1) Desomorphene (Krokodil)
From what I understand, this drug makes you high, then kills you. I'm for the right of people to kill themselves. There are many people who kill themselves painfully without any protection from pain (like a high) at all. I don't think this is worse than that. Therefore, I think this drug, and any other drug that kills you, shouldn't be illegal just because it kills you.

2) Morphine
Basically, what you're saying is that morphine should not be legalized for recreational use because it causes long term, irreversible damage to your health and eventually kills you, right?
I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to slowly ill themselves. How is that any different from smoking or drinking?

3. Addressing my points.

A.) Only people that want to die, or at least don't REALLY care, will die directly from that. If someone feels so bad, why not let them kill themselves like that? There aren't enough jobs or resources. Letting people that want to die, die, isn't a bad thing. Taking away people's rights is.

B.)Money will be spent cleaning up after them once instead of continuously while they're in prison.

C.) This just seems like more options to me. I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. Legal stores would be able to sell the new, stronger drugs just as much as the black market.

D.)But this would be one less thing for them to do illegally. And there is a chance. Again, no harm, possible benefit.

E.)Smoking and drinking are legal, but there are still lots of initiatives against them in school.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About your tips:

1) I'll try to be careful how I phrase my resolution.
2) I looked at some other debates before this one, and they just happened to all be like that so I thought that's what I should do. :)
3) I'm not exactly sure what this means, but thanks for the advice.
4) I won't. Thanks! :)
Preston

Con

1) It doesn't matter if you would allow thousands to kill themselves, the governments job is to protect its citizens (EA: police, Military, Fire department, ect.) You cannot claim its protecting its citizens if people are melting from drugs. Children are effected by their parents melting, and lots of times even innocent children are introduced into drugs by friends and family, not all of them go into it thinking, oh this will melt me.

2) Smoking and drinking are not nearly as addictive as morphine, morphine is also used medically, so people who are given medical morphine and become addicted will be fueled by recreational use. and remember even children are administered morphine in hospitals. So your for legalizing the MASS addiction and then feeding it.

3A) Children in situations worse than you are exposed to drugs more often than you, so those parents who die will expose their children who initially could have avoided it.

3B) A funeral is more expensive than a life in prison or in every drug users case, a year or two.

3C)no that's the point you're causing a continuous cycle of increased potency of addiction.

3D) there is a massive amount of harm, people dead, melting, ODing, broken families, Equal crime, all for a "possible benefit."

3E)Yea and we see how that works out, its legal, so they don't care.
Debate Round No. 2
Yehonathan

Pro

I realize that I might not explained myself well enough. While I think all drugs should be legal, I still think there should be regulation. For example, only adults should be able to

1) It doesn't matter if you would allow thousands to kill themselves, the governments job is to protect its citizens
(EA: police, Military, Fire department, ect.) You cannot claim its protecting its citizens if people are melting from drugs.
Children are effected by their parents melting, and lots of times even innocent children are introduced into drugs by friends and family, not all of them go into it thinking, oh this will melt me.

All of this is protecting people who weren't intentionally trying to die. They are protecting their right to happiness. Letting people kill themselves is part of the pursuit of happiness.
(This seems to be turning into a debate about the right to kill yourself.)

2) Smoking and drinking are not nearly as addictive as morphine, morphine is also used medically,
so people who are given medical morphine and become addicted will be fueled by recreational use.
and remember even children are administered morphine in hospitals. So you are for legalizing MASS addiction and then feeding it.

I wanted to legalize it, not making it so there won't be any regulation. Only adults would be allowed to buy drugs.
Have you ever heard of people getting morphine in a hospital and becoming addicted?

3A) Children in situations worse than you are exposed to drugs more often than you, so those parents who die will expose their children who initially could have avoided it.

The same parents could have got them from the black market. I think that increased regulation would mean that less people will die, even if drugs are easier to get.

3B) A funeral is more expensive than a life in prison or in every drug users case, a year or two.

Who pays for the funeral? The individual. If they don't have money for a funeral, they don't have money for drugs.
Perhaps make a law that people that die from suicide/intentionally harming don't get their funeral covered by the government/anyone that uses drugs for non medical use forfeits government paying for their funeral?
As I said, regulations and laws will have to address this.

3C)no that's the point you're causing a continuous cycle of increased potency of addiction.

If people have pure drugs, and can freely talk to their doctors, counselors, and other people who can help, won't that mean that they'll be less likely to be addicted to the point that it harms them then if they had to get their drugs on the black market, with no regulation ?

3D) there is a massive amount of harm, people dead, melting, ODing, broken families, Equal crime, all for a "possible benefit."

Only people that are willing to risk their lives thus will die. Overdosing becomes less likely because people have pure drugs and proper directions on how to use them.
Families are definitely broken if someone goes to jail. As I said, there is one less illegal activity available, so there will be less crime.

3E)Yea and we see how that works out, its legal, so they don't care.
It's working pretty well. "...the anti-smoking "Truth" campaign has been highly successful. The ads don't talk down to teens or even tell them not to smoke.
They basically say smoke if you want to, but it's stupid. And you'll have bad breath. And you won't to be able to run without gasping for breath. That's effective.
Cornell University's anti-binge-drinking "smart woman" campaign is also promising.
It avoids paternalistic messages not to drink and teaches students how to use good judgment and avoid high-risk drinking behavior." (2)

(2) http://www2.potsdam.edu...
Preston

Con

1) so what your saying is the child who's parents introduce him to Krokodil are only perusing their own happiness? Krokodil causes people to ROT alive, their skin falls off their body as it melts. I don't know about you, but my persuit to happiness doesn't include watching people melt, infact it involves some form of happiness. Infact Krokodil causes dipression and not happiness, the DEA stated "Pharmacology studies on laboratory animals with desomorphine demonstrated that desomorphine was generally more potent than morphine in all tested activities including: 1) toxicity in white mice and young rabbits, 2) analgesic action in cats, 3) respiratory effects in rabbits, 4) general depression in rabbits, and 5) gastrointestinal motility in rabbits." [http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...]

so they aren't pursuing happiness they are killing themselves and causing depression, all because we legalized an addictive substance.

2) So are you saying minors don't ever drink, smoke, or chew tobacco? adults buy it and give it to their kids, and yes, i know several people 2 children, 5 adults, that broke limbs and were administered morphine. But because it is so addictive they became addicted to it.

3A) How does that make any sense? if its more accessible people will be more likely to use it, and if they are likely to use it then they die, or rot away.

3B) That's the point, a funeral is more expenceive than regulated drugs, so people can go broke buying drugs. That means the govt. pays 7 to 10 thousand dollars, and since deaths are higher we pay millions. [http://www.learnvest.com...]

in 2012, 222,738 prisoners were sentenced to time for drug use/possession. so lets do some math;

222,738 drug users *$10,000 = $2,227,380,000 for deaths of drug users per YEAR, and this doesn't account for the growth due to accessibility
[http://www.drugwarfacts.org...]
That is too high, and we are causing deaths.

3C) we have cigarettes now and people die, do they have the ability to talk to doctors, counselors, and other people who can help? Yes. But they still die/suffer.

3D)children as i stated above are exposed to these drugs, is it ok that their lives are being risked? Overdosing has nothing to do with purity, is has to do with the amount we intake, and setting it up for recreational use means NO DOSAGES, its use at your own risk. while crime may go down we spend more and more on deaths, and a families may break over prisons or death HOWEVER there will be an influx in death, that means more deaths than prisoners, which leads to more broken families.

3E) I don't know what world your from but drugs, alchol, and cigarettes are used by teens. "40 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds " and that rose to "60 per cent among 14 to 15-year-olds", that doesn't sound like a decrease that's working. but it gets worse "Twenty-two per cent of 14 to 15-year-old girls and around 6 per cent of 12 to 13-year-old girls report smoking regularly. Smoking during teenage years increases the risk of lung cancer, even if the smoker stops. Girls and women who smoke are particularly at risk of breast cancer and osteoporosis." If your programs were working why is there an increase as children get older?
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk...]
Debate Round No. 3
Yehonathan

Pro

1) The regulations would, of course, make it so that it would be illegal for adults to introduce minors to drugs.
One possible way for this to happen would be only allowing people to use drugs in certain areas or buildings where one must present ID, or some other form of identification to show that they are not minors. Kind of like bars, except that would be the only place where the drugs could be used.

Your idea of the pursuit of happiness has no relevance in this discussion.

Analgesic action: this merely means pain relief. I don't see why this is something that should be considered a deterrent for drug legalization.
Higher toxicity: I have already argued that people should have the right to kill themselves. A less toxic drug is just as bad as a more toxic drug,
depending on how much of it one takes. Since it's already possible to abuse currently legal drugs, this won't really matter.
Respiratory effects: As long as people know what they are getting themselves into and don't hurt anyone else, they should be allowed to do what they want.
For the same reasons smoking and alcohol are legal, all drugs should be legal.
General depression: "Depressants are substances which slow down the normal function of the central nervous system."
"Depressants are commonly used to reduce anxiety, induce sleep and lower inhibitions."
This has nothing to do with the major depressive disorder, commonly known as depression, which you seem to have confused it with.
"So they aren't PURSUING HAPPINESS...and CAUSING DEPRESSION..."
Gastrointestinal motility:

2) No, I'm not saying that minors don't ever drink, smoke, or chew tobacco. I addressed this when I replied to statement 1;
"...people could only use drugs in certain areas or buildings...".

3A)"...none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents ,
from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" has occurred."

"Although post-decriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies "
such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage " have decreased dramatically.
Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens, enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization."

"The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success.
Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world."

http://www.cato.org...

This directly refutes your assertation, which you have provided no evidence to back up.

3B) 1. A funeral is more expensive than regulated drugs, so people can go broke buying drugs.

That depends on how expansive the drugs are, and how often they use those drugs. Anyways, the same argument can be applied to junk food.
It's cheaper than a funeral, and eating enough of it can eventually make you need a funeral. However, it would be ridiculous to ban junk food because of that. It's your choice.

2. That means that the government pays 7 to 10 thousand dollars, and since deaths are higher we pay millions.

"If you keep it simple, though, the average cost of a cremation, including a basic memorial service, runs about $1,600.
If you go for a so-called direct cremation, without a memorial service, the cost can drop well below $1,000.
Go online and you can find prices as low as $600 or so."

http://www.nbcnews.com...

You provided no data on how much the government pays for funerals, only how much a normal funeral costs, so I had to look this up myself.
The government could probably get bulk discounts too. You used the high end of the price range,
which is completely unrepresentative of what the government would have to pay.

3C) We have cigarettes now and people die, do they have the ability to talk to doctors, counselors, and other people who can help? Yes. But they still suffer and die.

"Evidence from controlled field experiments suggests that antitobaccomass media campaigns conducted in conjunction with school- or community-based programming can be effective in curbing smoking initiation in youth and promoting smoking cessation in adults."

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov...

3D) 1. As I stated above, children are exposed to these drugs. Is it OK that their lives are being risked?

It would be illegal to sell any drug to anyone under the designated age, perhaps 18.
Anyone caught doing so would lose their license to sell drugs, and with it a sizable slice of their business; they might go to prison. It would not be worth the risk.

2. Overdosing has nothing to do with purity, it has to do with the amount we intake...

If you don't know what you're taking, you are more likely to kill yourself accidentally.

3. ...and setting it up for recreational use means NO DOSAGES, it's use at your own risk.

Everyone would be free to overdose if they want. They would just know exactly how much they could take for whatever their purposes are. They would know exactly what the side-effects could be, and how much they need for a high.

4. While crime may go down ...

So you admit that crime would go down. This would save HUGE amounts of people from dying!

5. ...we spend more and more on deaths...

Here is some evidence that points in another direction. "Evidence from Portugal, where all drugs were decriminalized over 10 years ago, suggests safer behavior (fewer fatal overdoses and cases of HIV), when the law is not breathing down your neck so heavily."
http://newint.org...

This, and the end of all the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, shows that there would be probably less deaths.

6. ...and families may break over prisons or death,

The thing is, there would be less deaths as well as less people going to prison, so that argument is invalid.

7. HOWEVER there will be an influx of death.

See 5.

8. That means more deaths than prisoners, which leads to more broken families.

See 5.


3E) I don't know what world you're from, but drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are used by teens.
"40 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds " and that rose to "60 per cent among 14 to 15-year-olds", that doesn't sound like a decrease that's working.

1.If your programs were working why is there an increase as children get older?

"...teen drug and alcohol use take a turn for the worse...
"We are troubled, but not completely surprised, by these numbers because, in schools and communities across the country, support for drug education and prevention programs has been cut drastically due to budgetary pressures."
(Emphasis added)

http://www.drugfree.org...

Obviously, cutting budgets for for drug education and prevention programs would reduce their effectiveness.
Preston

Con

1) Judges you can drop his arguments on regulation here completely because of their subjective nature. he cannot show that they will work and simply says they will be in place, However this contradicts his argument where he says we should have it legal because there would be less crime and thus no black market. Thus his refutation here can be dropped.

2)Adding more restrictions without explaining if they will work or their outcome, He doesn't explain what happens if these restrictions are ignored, thus these refutations can be dropped as well.

3A) The evidence he provides you here doesn't even apply to the united states but instead Portugal, a country with completely different culture, Portugal Wiebke Hollerson stated "The number of people taking illegal drugs in Portugal was low compared with other countries" the united states has a high amount of drug users. He continues"Warnings, reminders and invitations to rehab -- it seems Portugal's war on drugs is a gentle one. "Humanistic and pragmatic" is how Jo"o Goul"o describes the new program. It is based on decriminalization, which should not be confused with legalization. Portugal considered that path too, but ultimately decided not to take things quite that far." PORTUGAL HAS NOT LEGALISED ALL DRUGS, INSTEAD THEY TOOK A MORE SUBTLE APPROACH. my opponents statistics thus fall. [http://www.spiegel.de...]

3B)my opponent has not properly supported this argument and thus this point falls.

(2?) Cremation still requires the costs of burial, you have only provided the costs for cremation, my opponent then gives an un-backed observation on how the government can give bulk discounts, this again is subjective and broad and thus it can be dropped.

3C) The evidence provided here doesn't address the argument I made thus it falls.

3D) This is again a subjective observation, that assumes we live in a perfect world where telling 18 year olds and below that drugs are bad and not to do them will work. That doesn't work now and it wont work then.

2) Knowing what youre taking doesn't increase the risk of Overdosing.

3) So giving people drugs like heroine, commonly overdosed on, would be a good idea because they are free to die? What benefit does this bring? Who is this Helping? You haven't provided why this is a good thing and why letting people die is a benefit.

4) People are dying from overdoses and melting alive, that's why crime goes down, that's still not a good thing, and based off the fact your answer for any issue is a regulation I would assume crime would actually go up.

5) PORTUGAL DIDNT LEGALISE DRUGS, THEY TOOK A SOFTCORE APPROACH, people are still punished for doing drugs. AND FYI "The number of drug addicts who became infected with HIV was also considerably higher than in most other countries." thus the drop is to be expected.

6) my opponent provided no logic or evidence to support this statement.

7) this is still unanswered

8)see 7

3E)
1- This doesn't even apply, my stats talk about smoking tobacco and yours is about ecstasy and marijuana, this leaves my statement un-refuted and shows that your perfect world scenario doesn't work, the community doesn't support it.
Debate Round No. 4
Yehonathan

Pro

Since this is the last round, I'd like to thank Preston for a great first debate, and for any readers, voters, and commentators of this debate for looking at this. Thank you all very much!
Preston

Con

I would also like to end by thanking Yehonathan for the great debate, if you read this thanks, vote well, I hope to see you all around!
#DDO2014
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
welcome to the site... sadly I am a little too tired to vote properly right now, and it's on the last day.
Posted by Yehonathan 2 years ago
Yehonathan
I'd be very happy if more people commented! :)
Posted by Yehonathan 2 years ago
Yehonathan
Ok.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
hey ill respond tomorrow at work,
Posted by Yehonathan 2 years ago
Yehonathan
Um, I seem to have put this debate in the religion category. Does anyone know a way to move it to a more appropriate category?
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
ditto, but all drugs, that's a bad idea
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
I think that the argument for legalization needs to be on a drug by drug basis. I'd like to see psychedelics and cannabis legalized for sure.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
we are polar opposite on opinions
No votes have been placed for this debate.