The Instigator
moneymachine2004
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Grapeness
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Cocaine should be made legal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 6 votes the winner is...
Grapeness
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,120 times Debate No: 19107
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

moneymachine2004

Pro

You make your argument and I will respond

thank you for viewing my debate
Grapeness

Con

Sure ill be happy to go on this debate.

Go ahead Pro
Debate Round No. 1
moneymachine2004

Pro

We should make cociane legal, but make it illegal to ingest.

[1] there would be no black market

[2] it will still be illegal to use to get high. This will send a clear message to everyone that the drug is still bad.

this is a win win situation.
Grapeness

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate

This is a specific resolution that has spacific guidlines for a spacific type of drug.

My opponent has bluntly created his arguments rather oddly, Yet in the good spirit of LD i

A) "There would be no Black market"

If you legalize drugs and tax them, you will have a black market that can sell the same drugs less expensively. The same is true if you stamp a tariff on imported drugs, and history shows this to be correct.

B) "It will still be illegal to use to get high. This will send a clear message to everyone that the drug is still bad"

The main process of legalising this "drug" is to use it..so in this case you are contradicting yourself.

Now onto my own argument i offer the following definitions from dictionary.com to better understand this resolution.

Crack: An addictive narcoticdrug dreived from coca leavs or synthised, used medicinally as a tropical anestedic.

Legal: To be permmited by law.

Now onto my agunment:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Drugs are a waste of time. They destroy your memory and your self-respect and everything that goes along with with your self esteem.”

Because i agree with Singer Kurt Cobain i vote in strong negation of this resolution that Cocaine should be made legal in the United States.

My Value is of LIFE plainy because no matter what a person decides to do life will be affected in more then one way.

Contention 1: Health Risks

Helth playing a huge role in life especially when it comes to the use of "killer" drugssuch as cocane. Both in the phisical aspects and mental aspects call

Sub A: Cocaine in all its forms stimulates the central nervous system. It causes the heart to beat more rapidly and blood vessels to constrict. This results in the demand for a greater supply of blood.

Sub B: With high doses, users can become delusional, paranoid, and even suffer acute toxic psychosis. Blood pressure increases, which can cause strokes or heart attacks. In some cases these effects have proven fatal. As the drug’s effects wear off, a depression can set in, leaving the user feeling fatigued, jumpy, fearful, and anxious



Debate Round No. 2
moneymachine2004

Pro

I agree with my opponent regarding the health risks. I am only advocating its legal to use for pretend snow. The government could pass a law that makes it illegal to resale this item once purchased and also prohibit the buyer from ingesting it. If the buyer is a law abiding citizens he or she won't sale or ingest it. Moreover, the seller would be required to record the name and address of the buyer. If the buyer sales or ingest the item he or she would be fined, imprisoned or sent to a rehab center.

My primary concern is to snuff out the black market induced violence as a result of the drug being totally illegal. My opponent states that there will always be some sort of black market once a sale tax is imposed. I won't argue against that notion. However, I urge the Con to name any other product that results in the type of violence that Cocaine causes. There are people stabbed, rapped, kidnapped, murdered, and robbed daily because Cocaine is completely illegal. Drug dealers infest the streets in communities selling the drug for profit to people. Does this occur with other taxed items--ipods, cigarettes, alcohol, beer or anything else? I don't see rival gangs kill each other for selling video games in the other gang's turf. This only occurs because the tremendous profits that Cocaine potentially brings. If Cocaine was available in the community at a very low price the violence would seize. The stores could sale the product for pennies on the dollar, thus rendering the drug dealer's 100 grams almost worthless overnight. In order for this policy to be successful, the government must make sure that the price for Cocaine is kept low--so it might require a price control.

Lets try this policy and end the violence associated with illegal cocaine sales.

If the policy was to take effect, I would urge the government to ratchet up the enforcement of the drug policy. This it to say, that people caught illegally using the drug should be punished. Hopefully, strict enforcement would deter people from illegally ingesting the drug.

The Con might argue that illegal use of the drug may double or triple under such policy. I don't believe the Con or anyone reading this debate will ingest cocaine because its sold as pretend snow. I can't argue that it would or wouldn't increase the illegal use. I can only offer a plan to deal with that situation if it comes down to it. However, I know for a fact that the violence that runs rampant in South America and the United States because the drug is totally illegal would end. I know that there will be no motivation for drug dealers to stand on corner trying to sale the drug if there is little or no profit to be made. By making Cocaine legal, the South American governments would gladly seek control of the Cocaine and sale it to the United States.

This policy

positive

[1] will end the violence associated with the black market sale of cocaine
[2] will end gang violence based on the profit of cocaine
[3] will help identify people buying to use or sale it

Note: I understand that professionals that seek the drug might pay others to purchase it for them. Thats why its important to keep track of the people buying the drug. The police could run a sting on that individaul and hopes that they caught him in the act. Moreover, the buyer could be arrested as will for illegally purchasing the drug.

negative

[1] may or may not used to increase use. As I stated earlier, the Con, people reading this debate and myself included would not use the drug even if it were legal and free. Nonetheless, I reduce the possibility of the occurence by putting rules and regulations designed to prevent a person from ingesting the product illegally. Even so, the Con will not be able to prove that illegal drug ingestion would increase under this policy since its never been done. In fact, it would be possible that the number might remain the same or decrease.

It is my contention that a plan that ends violence is worth pursing even if it may increase illegally ingesting of the product in the Unites States.
Grapeness

Con

Road map: I will first begin to defend then attack.

Defense

I would like to first state that my opponent has not attacked but agreed with the following

My Previous Attacks on

A) Witch states clearly that taxes will be put in place if legalized thus my opponent responded with "I won't argue against that notion" therefore point blank he agrees that taxes will be set in place by the "black market"

B) Seeing how he neither attacked it i presume he agrees with me.

My Quote/Value: He has not given more has he attacked mine presuming that he agrees that life could be affected

Definitions: Seeing how he did not attack or gave definitions he clearly agrees with mine.

My Contention one: "I agree with my opponent regarding the health risks." therefore he agrees that drugs do play affect on the users LIFE.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACK

War on Drugs actually creates the majority of costs our communities pay when considering illegal drugs.

Violence itself can be successfully dealt with as a public health problem. It is important to consider the fact that most “drug-related” violence is actually drug trade related. In an analysis of New York City's homicides in 1988, Paul Goldstein and his colleagues concluded that 74 percent of drug-related homicides were related to the black market drug trade and not drug use. For instance, the leading crack-related homicide cause was shown to be territorial disputes between rival dealers, and not crack-induced violence or violence to obtain money for crack purchases.


With this being said there will be no stopping to the following
  • Sales of cocaine and other drugs will continue as they have been and possibly rise. As agreed upon by my opponent my my previous attack.
  • Violence within itself in gang and criminal warfare will still rise because of this ca loss of innocent and gang LIVES in witch we live in.


Debate Round No. 3
moneymachine2004

Pro

ATTACK

War on Drugs actually creates the majority of costs our communities pay when considering illegal drugs.

We are already in a War on Drugs. Is the Con suggesting that we would be better off if we stop the current war on drug. Is this to say that all drugs should be legal? I am not advocating stopping the war on drugs, but it seems my opponent is. The Con should clarify how this statement benefits his position.

Violence itself can be successfully dealt with as a public health problem.

How has this worked so far? Is the Con arguing that drug related violence has decreased in the United States and South American countries as a result of dealing with it as a public health issue. Please cite the evidence

It is important to consider the fact that most "drug-related" violence is actually drug trade related.

Drug related violence is certainly related to the illegal drug trade. I am advocating a legal drug trade between the United States and those South American Countries that produce it. The difference is legal versus illegal. Once its legal, and little or no profit could be made by illegal trade, violence related illegal drug trade would seize. Can the Con name any product that is legally traded wherein there is violence related to an illegal trade of that product. Yes, there are plenty of fake i-pods, computers, watches and other products traded--however there is no violence near the level that we have with the illegal trade of cocaine. The primary reason for this is the enormous profits that can be made. That profit margin will be greatly reduced if not outright eliminated.

In an analysis of New York City's homicides in 1988, Paul Goldstein and his colleagues concluded that 74 percent of drug-related homicides were related to the black market drug trade and not drug use.

This supports my argument. I agree that there might be a black market for Cocaine, but it would be no different than the black market for i-pods, coach bags or cigarettes. As I have stated, if one can buy Cocaine for pennies on the dollar at a store then there would be a very small and extremely limited black market. All black markets are not created equally. The violence related to the current black market is largely due to the profits that the cocaine brings. If there is little or no profit to be made, the violence would end.

For instance, the leading crack-related homicide cause was shown to be territorial disputes between rival dealers, and not crack-induced violence or violence to obtain money for crack purchases.

I agree, the violence has little to do with crack purchases but more to do with the illegal trade. I am only arguing that we must continue the war on drugs because most people in this country believe the policy works. I don't want people arguing that drug use will run rampant. As I have noted, there will be no need to protect a turf is the cocaine that one has is of little value. Most drug dealers will move to another criminal activity or might go straight if there was no profit to be made in the drug game. There are black market DVD sales, video games, glasses, coach bags and many other products, but no violence anywhere near that of the cocaine black market. The difference is the profit margins. Take the profit margins and there goes the violence related to the black market.

With this being said there will be no stopping to the following

•Sales of cocaine and other drugs will continue as they have been and possibly rise. As agreed upon by my opponent my my previous attack.

No, I said that illegal use might rise. Yes, sales may remain the same or rise, however the sellers will change. The sellers will be legitimate business owners. As I stated, we will be able to follow the buyers more closely and possibly put them in rehab. The black market for cocaine will mainly arise due to the fact that the buyer will be required to give his or her name and address when purchasing the drug. This would be no different than a priest having someone putting a porno tape on his or her credit card so that its no record he bought it. I cannot imagine that sort of black market leading to violence the likes we have right now.

•Violence within itself in gang and criminal warfare will still rise because of this ca loss of innocent and gang

Sorry, but I do not understand this argument. I have argued that gang violence would be drastically reduced because the profit margin for cocaine would be reduce. In fact, many young man won't even join the gang if there was no fast money to be made. Please clarify for me if possible.

thank you
Grapeness

Con

No comment..due to the basses that my oponnent is bth agrreing and defying my own and his own agrguments.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
Debater are you going to use Cocaine because its legal to buy it as pretend snow? I don't think anyone commenting on this debate will use Cocaine because its legal to use as pretend snow. As I argued in the debate, the people currently using Cocaine will certainly probably illegally use the drug and I have introduced policies to deal with that. You have no evidence that overall drug use will sky rocket because its legal to use a snow. Most Americans are law abiding citizens still will not ingest it, because either they don't want to do it or its illegal. Moreover, you can't make a reasonable argument that the violence with regard to the illegal drug trade would seize or greatly be reduced because it would not be very profitable.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
Yes...yes...yes...
Than the proper market merges with the black market. Drugs goes into mass production, people consumes it (yes, people commits crime), and we're all healthy.

And...correct me if I'm wrong, legal for pretend snow? Cocaines are pricey.
Posted by Grapeness 5 years ago
Grapeness
Wow somone voted because...you were batman?
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
Debater...

It will be legal for pretend snow. It will be legal for pretend snow.

I do not claim, state or assert that Cocaine has a medical use. What are you talking about?

READ BEFORE YOU POST YOU NEXT COMMENT
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
Debater, you fail to address my central concern which is to stop the vicious black market that is created by the illegal drug trade. I said you can make it legal for pretend snow. There will be too many arguments against total legalization so I take a different approach. Read the entire debate and stop skipping through it and making off the wall comments.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
"By closely monitoring the people that's legally purchasing the drugs and increasing enforcement, I address the argument that we will become a drug addict nation."
For what? To arrest all the people who purchased drugs? Or to limit its uses to medical purposes (if it had a medical value, it would have been legalized)?
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
The point of this debate was to disarm my opponent from using their normal modes of attack against legalizing drugs. They normally argue that by legalizing drugs, one sends a message that they are okay. And secondly, they show all the problems that drugs cause. By not legalizing the ingestion of the drugs, it immediately dis-arms the first argument that we are sending a bad message. By closely monitoring the people that's legally purchasing the drugs and increasing enforcement, I address the argument that we will become a drug addict nation.

However, I was not aware that I would also be attacked by folks that support full legalization of the drugs. I see to those folks, I am on your side, but we have to think outside the box because so many people are convinced that if drugs were legal it would be the end of the world.
Posted by Debater17 5 years ago
Debater17
GREAT. It is now time to legalize murder, that should result in a significant drop in crime rates.
Posted by Grapeness 5 years ago
Grapeness
Agreed my oponnent has utterly changed his own argument..please vote for con.
Posted by lotus_flower 5 years ago
lotus_flower
"its many products that have legal uses"
although I agree that it should be legal, making it illegal to get high with it is just retarded.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jellopants 5 years ago
Jellopants
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: What an absolute waste of time and effort.
Vote Placed by bozotheclown 5 years ago
bozotheclown
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: IM BATMAN!!!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe con had a better case, and did better in his actual debate, so con wins. But since pro did well too I will conduct to pro.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
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: Besides the fact that changing fonts every round is quite annoying, Con made more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm gonna give a lot of points in this one. Advice to con: don't get frustrated, have counter-rebuttal, and fix your silly formatting! Advice to pro: make sure you address all of con's points, particularly education (even if con didn't state it very well), and elaborate/justify your model further (prima face your model looks stupid). Pro had more facts supporting his case (sources), better spelling and didn't storm out at the end. Pro did not meet BoP of showing why getting high is still not OK.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
moneymachine2004GrapenessTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The most retarded debate ever