The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
zippo
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

All drugs should be made legal or be provided on the NHS

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 7 votes the winner is...
zippo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,080 times Debate No: 7450
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (7)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

OK so drugs , hot topic ever since , well ever since they have been proven to be bad for you , increase crime , make people do stupid things , be used as money to supply weapons etc ....

I have an idea that is , Drugs should be provided free , it would reduce everything wrong with drugs greatly , think about it , you want to take drugs ? be my guest I couldnt care less about you ( no offence ) however you start to become my problem when , you try to rob me for drugs money , cause problems in my area m give drugs to kids you know .. then i care .

So to eliminate drugs ? i propose a new system , very radical your job is to critise this system and prove me wrong etc that drugs should remain 100% illegal except when perscribed .

My idea is a NHS liek system , were almost all drugs are provided free , drug addicts recive however much drugs they want , given a hit in a room or something similar by a nurse , and left in this room with some cuddley toys and bright pictures for their amusment.

Now , you say hold on a minute why should we pay for drugs for drug addicts ? think about it , the cost of trying to stop drugs flows and dealign with drug realted crimes , would probably cost more than providing them free drugs.
It costs millions of pounds in the U.K if not hundreds of millions to try stop drugs and deal with offenders etc. If we provide them for free all we need to do is pay a smallamount of staff and open a few clinics and by the drugs for them , all probably at the cost of a couple of million pounds sure , but would cost millions of pounds less them trying to stopo it with the police etc.

So now you are probably saying , ok sounds like a good system , drug addicts of the street , police can use there hours more wisley and help the community , gangsters go bust , prostitution is down , But you think , if these drugs are avliable to anybody , wont that mean an increase in drugs addicts ? Some how i dont think it would , I think people would be put off by this , and we could take schoolchildren on tours of these clinics and show the drug addicts lying around in these rooms in there own filith pretty much , because the majority of people start taking drugs because of peer pressure and so on , this way it removes all peer pressure and kids will not even have the chance to start takign drugs , as nobody will be willing to pay for them as its free and everybody would be put off going to these clinics , as they are jsut a palce for the drug addicts and no more , nothing great , infact make them look run-down and dirty from the outside to stop people wondering in thinking it will be great.

So now you have to argue agaisnt me , prove to me my system is crap and will not work and make problems worse , as i think the only way to tackle a radical problem , is with a radical soultion.
zippo

Con

OK so drugs , hot topic ever since , well ever since they have been proven to be bad for you , increase crime , make people do stupid things , be used as money to supply weapons etc ....

I think after this initial statement.. I win. by default
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

get lost you idiot , ruined this debate , i never said once drugs were good , i jsut said they were bad , THATS WHY THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON THE NHS TO STOP ALL THIS BADNESS , idiot.
zippo

Con

This debate was ruined before i even step foot here. If you want we can continue with it. I certainly havn't given up yet. Have you given up on your faulty idea yet? I'm hoping you end this debate now, but part of me wants you to continue to make yourself look even more foolish. So lets go on.

I live in America, atm handing out drugs for free as though it was some sort of amazing holiday is just a pathetic idea at best. Why dont we give terrorists funding for building weapons of mass destruction while we're at it. It seems thats the only way your idea would turn out, is mass destruction. I give you points on originality but the execution of it could be handled a lot differently than you have proposed.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

You are an idiot do you know that ? you critsise my idea ? tell me whats wrong with takign drug dealers and addicts off the streets and letting them have fun in a room by themselves instead of snatchign an old ladys handbag or breakign into your house ? i will continue this debate , as it is you who are the fool and have failed to read the idea nor have you presneted any real argument , you also said for your first post " i win by default " even though the poitn i made was valid you idiot.
zippo

Con

Im the foolish one..? Your the one throwing insults around like your in the 3rd grade and you just found out the words STUPID and IDIOT and can't wait to use them on someone.

Smoking tabaco is legal, drinking alchohol is legal, do you see how well those benefit our community? Not so great what makes you think that allowing everyone the freedom to smoke and snort and inject anything they want is going to benefit the community. The only argument you have presented that has any value to me would be allowing children to see what happens when you become a drug addict. However, I dont think the parents would sign the concent form to allow their children to go visit the hospitals where all these addicts lay in their own filth. They can do the same now with images in the classroom. Awareness is prevention, and the more that are aware the less that will be involved in the drug scene. Also if drugs were given out for free as you say, they wouldn't be administered at the hospitals, they would be given prescriptions and allowed to take their drugs home. So thats another faulty idea you've proposed. Who's to say they can't just take their prescribed drugs and sell them to someone who either is embarassed to go to one of those places and get free drugs or it could affect their job if someone were to find out. SO they just buy the drugs from the person who is getting the prescriptions, thus starting an entirely new industry which is more wide spread, than what is already happening today. Like in California where medical marijuana is free and prescribed and then sold by the people who were suppose to use them for personal health reasons.

Lets keep the name calling to a minimum. I know your craving a fix for some cocaine or something, and maybe you are so cracked out you think that starting this debate will actually amount to anything so you can get yourself some free drugs. Maybe even to sell to a friend.. who knows
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
I am still falling to comprehend how I am losing if my opponent never debated ?

just shows that the debaters here read a title of a debate and vote accordingly ...
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
zippo, You deliberately ignored the generality. I asked if it was true that all bad things should be made illegal. You ignored that in favor of saying that the example I used was not a good example, because it was not a bad thing that affected society as a whole. That's disingenuous, as if you couldn't perceive the broader point. Previously you argued that fried food was obviously bad, and therefore presumably was a good example of something that should be made illegal. The effect on society as a whole is that it increases health care costs in general, and, some argue, that society has a responsibility to protect dumb individuals from harm. The same arguments apply to improper dental hygiene.

My point is solely that whether the good of a law outweighs the bad must be argued case by case. Admitting that something is bad does not end the debate, because there may or may not be a good that outweighs it.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
if you are truely passionate about this idea of yours, you should really start this debate over again. Just copy and paste everything you put before, maybe someone will be more serious the second time around. Cheers and Good luck
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
whatever its over now you admitted yu acted stupidly about it and i admited i over-reacted the end , why not continue it ?
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
After typing this i will start to lather up to soap to wash my hands of this debate, like i did before. I just wish i wasn't sucked back into it.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
hes trying to make the point that the goverment should not decide what is bad for us , let people choose that with adivce maybe from the goverment.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Nearly everything you posted was meant to sound intelligent, and personally to me it sounds just that way. You seem like a very bright person. However, your only ammo is to claim that just because someone doesn't brush their teeth, that it should be made illegal. If you had a brain you would realize that toothpaste isn't affecting your life if you use it. Having a smack of heroin is. So please if you want to have a debate at least have some common sense before you start typing.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
zippo, Would you like to debate the resolution, "All bad things should be made illegal?" In other words, freedom of choice, the unintended effects upon society, the mechanism for determining what is "bad", the fact that things bad for one person may be good for another -- all should be subordinated in favor of making anything deemed bad illegal. It's bad not to brush your teeth, so therefore it should be illegal, right? In this debate, you claimed that once that Pro conceded drugs were bad, that conceded the whole debate, claiming Pro had not made a prima facia case. That argument is invalid. You must argue that making drugs legal is worse than making them illegal, all factors considered.
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
They are doing lots to combat fried foods so what the hell are you talking about. Its practically like they are fighting the war on drugs when it comes to McDonald's. Unless im completely wrong...? too early to start looking for facts to prove some commenter wrong or right.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Poor conduct. Con indeed took the topic and refused to debate. Stipulating that something is bad, does not stipulate it should be illegal. It's bad to vote for fiscally irresponsible liberal Democrats, but it shouldn't be illegal. Fried food is bad; that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Depends upon the advantages and disadvantages of legalization in each case, which is what Pro was arguing.

Incidentally, there is a flaw in the wording of "all drugs". Not, for example, antibiotics. It should be "certain recreational drugs."
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 8 years ago
girlforgod21
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by taylorbot 8 years ago
taylorbot
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by fattkattz55 8 years ago
fattkattz55
rangersfootballclubzippoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70