The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Debatequeen1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All recreational drugs should be legalized.

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 3 votes the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 692 times Debate No: 65249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

SebUK

Pro

BoP is shared , Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Debatequeen1

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

First of all i would like to make a little speech why I think drugs should be legalized . The war on drugs has been going on for decades , now it has cost world economies billions and thousands of innocent people were put into jail for a victim less crime but humanity has been using drugs for thousands of years of human history it is a part of human culture that we are not gone rid of by criminalizing it from Alexander the Great's opium to modern age cannabis use criminalizing people for drug use will not stop people doing it . Now i will explain why legalizing drugs is a good idea 1. Violence&Black Market Why do we associate drug use with violence? It is because people who want to use drugs have to go to a black market to buy them this market is unregulated and uncontrolled , different factions involved in drug trade are fighting against each other and by legalizing drugs we would give people the chance to buy drugs from a more reliable source such as the government or a regulated private sector .This market is regulated which makes everything better , don't you think most people would rather buy from it than from a drug dealer in a dark alley that has no knowledge of business management , The black market would collapse 2.Freedom. In a truly free society people shouldn't restrict the freedom of others this is very relevant to the issue of banning drugs as drug usage is a victim-less crime and I consider banning it to be immoral. 2.Safety. Why do so many people overdose on drugs? for example heroin apart from its addictiveness is not as harmful to your body as let's say cocaine as heroin addicts can survive decades and the only reason why they die in the end is because of overdosing. The reason why people overdose on such drugs is because like I explained before they are forced to buy them from an unregulated market where drug dealers can put stuff into the drug to increase the value therefore customers are not sure how pure it is and might inject too much causing an overdose. 3.Price. Drug addicts often have to engage in criminal activity to get money for their next fix but if drugs were legalized the price would go down and it wouldn't be such a hard job to get your next fix so your life can be a lot better. 4. Prison Overgrowth . For this example let's look at the USA , 5% of the worlds population lives in USA yet 25% of all prisoners in the world are in USA , around 80% of all drug arrests are simply for having drugs on you ,this is putting innocent people in prison and over crowding prisons that have to be paid for. 5. Money. Taxing those who produce drugs will give the government a lot of money , this is a simple argument not much to add to this argument 6.Statistics. in 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offenses and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work. Sources http://www.drugwarfacts.org............... http://www.poppies.ws............... 'Alexander the Great introduced poppies to the Near East, starting the flowers long history in Asia. Opium was largely used as a social drug in India and China. Ancient Asian texts described the medical properties of opium.' http://www.spiegel.de............... ' If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs. ' . http://www.huffingtonpost.com......
Debatequeen1

Con

First of all, I think cigarettes are fine as long as people smoke them far away from restaurants, stores, etc...

As to the war on drugs costing to economy billions and thousands - Rehab facilities are also costing economies billions and thousands.

Drug use is quite frequently associated with violence. Yes, there are violent people who don't used drugs and there are people who use drugs who aren't violent. Drugs aren't safe, and they certainly aren't safe in large amounts. Taking large amounts of drugs can lead to a ton of violence and crimes.

Drug related deaths also cost the government a lot of money.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

I would like to remind Con that the BoP is shared and she has to come up with arguments for her case too. 'As to the war on drugs costing to economy billions and thousands - Rehab facilities are also costing economies billions and thousands.' If you are making the claim that rehab facilities cost more then the war on drugs then you actually have to back up your argument with statistics and evidence. 'Drugs aren't safe, and they certainly aren't safe in large amounts. Taking large amounts of drugs can lead to a ton of violence and crimes.' Drugs would be cheaper as I explained in round 1 and therefore there would be less crime as drug addicts wouldn't have to steal to get their next fix . The black market would fall therefore reducing a lot of drug-related violance . Milton Friedman has estimated that the black market causes 10,000 additional homicides a year. -() (Around 5 minute mark) .
Debatequeen1

Con

Here some evidence. Several websites list that three quarters of the treatment is paid for by taxpayers.

A study funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that 77.4 percent of treatment in 2003 was paid for by Medicaid, Medicare, and other federal, state and local sources, up from 50.4 percent in 1986. Meanwhile, the private sector's share of the treatment cost burden slipped from 49.6 percent in 1986 to 22.6 percent in 2003.
http://www.drugfree.org...

Now I would like to see your evidence :)

You said that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper and addicts wouldn't have to steal.
Do they even have to steal in the first place?
The answer is no. Let's say someone ends up running out of money and can't get any more drugs, they will eventually move on with life without drugs and they won't be addicts anymore. So that's one less person we have to worry about with using drugs.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

'Here some evidence. Several websites list that three quarters of the treatment is paid for by taxpayers.' Yes and I don't support this , I support private healthcare but either way Con failed to prove that these rehab facilities cost more then the war on drugs and frankly I highly doubt so. Like I mentioned in Round 2 , drug prohibition is incredibly expensive . The US alone could save billions 'If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs.'-(http://www.spiegel.de...) . The war on drugs has cost the US at least a trillion -(http://www.rense.com...) -(http://www.foxnews.com...) If you are gone say that the rehab facilities cost the taxpayer more then a trillion then you have to back this up with evidence . 'Now I would like to see your evidence :)' Evidence for what? . 'You said that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper and addicts wouldn't have to steal.
Do they even have to steal in the first place?' No they don't but they will statistically much more then the average citizen and how is criminalizing drugs dealing with this? . 'For example, according to the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, 80 percent of people who abuse drugs steal from their places of employment in order to sustain their addictions. Far more people might steal from those they live with. The theft could be minor and include spare change or leftover medications. The theft could also be major, as the person might raid bank accounts, grab credit cards or take jewelry. The thief might also steal identifying information, allowing the person to open up bank accounts or take out loans under your identity.' - (http://luxury.rehabs.com...) . ' Let's say someone ends up running out of money and can't get any more drugs, they will eventually move on with life without drugs and they won't be addicts any more. ' Do you think they are statistically likely to give up their habit? You have to back up your argument with evidence then. I have to remind Con again that she has to create some arguments too , I have clearly stated in Round 1 that the BoP is shared and while I have posted my arguments in Round 2 she simply addressed what I said instead of making a case for herself . She has not fulfilled the BoP .
Debatequeen1

Con

Debatequeen1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
I honestly don't think either side did well. SebUK appears to have more content but that's about it. Grammar and structure is poor. The arguments aren't really solid, either. (This applies to both sides)
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
What a pointless debate this was .
Posted by notyourbusiness 2 years ago
notyourbusiness
The "all" is going to be the major point in this debate, at least from my point of view. A pity Con's arguments are poor...

Someone more competent needs to challenge SebUK. Then we would have a real, interesting, insightful debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I am libertarian, politically. Take away the illegality of all substances, but not the responsibility of taking them. If you do drugs, then YOU are responsible for the effects of them. Not the taxpayer.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
Please win this debatequeen
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
If your vote is gone be biased , im just gone report it :) . Votes shouldn't be based on opinion but on the debate . Both the Private Sector and the government could sell it , if you have a problem with that then post your opinion . 'Seriously' is not good enough .
Posted by OverLordSandwich 2 years ago
OverLordSandwich
@SebUK: Are you suggesting that the government should be the ones to sell the drugs to prevent chaos for those who want drugs? Seriously?
If your opponent could make better speeches the vote would be easy....
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Speech taken from my previous debate on drug legalization.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
SebUKDebatequeen1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for ff. Sources to Pro because they actually enhanced his argument whereas Cons only source was to make a single refutable point. RDF: Pro simply made more points than Con countered. He didn't even try, the brevity and lack of sources shows this.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SebUKDebatequeen1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Philosophybro 2 years ago
Philosophybro
SebUKDebatequeen1Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: minus conduct for ff