The Instigator
MitchyMill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlackVoid
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Drug Legalization

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...
BlackVoid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 951 times Debate No: 14245
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

MitchyMill

Pro

You're on the top of the debater's list. So i want to see how you defend your position on drug legalization :D
BlackVoid

Con

I'm not sure what this debater's list is, but at least I'm on the top of something! Good luck and I await your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
MitchyMill

Pro

Idk, the list on the right of the of the page showed your name. So, be happy you're famous! :D

To start, i in no way advocate the use of drugs.

I'm sorry if i don't hit every point of the debate or make multiple points in one of the numbered topics, but hopefully you'll have a wonderful rebuttal waiting for me!

Basically:
1: More people use drugs when they are illegal. Historically this has been the case. For instance, in the 1920s alcohol was illegal. During that time you had the Al Capons, his men bootlegged alcohol from Belgium and Holland. Their were increased car accidents, crime, and consumption of alcohol. All of the effects i listed decreased dramatically after the passing of the 21st amendment. There is no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime.

In the Netherlands, where Marijuana is legal, you have less people using it there than you do here (percentage wise) where it's illegal.

2: The "Gateway Drug" theory is a myth. One of the most addictive drugs in the country is nicotine, and no one ever calls nicotine a gateway drug. The man buying marijuana can't get the marijuana from the store like he would if it were legal. He must go through the drug dealer, with the dirty needles, harder drugs, high prices, and crime associates. You don't see the bartender selling alcohol to kids, or else he would lose his liquor license.

3: Making an item illegal does not eliminate it, it merely causes the people who want it to get it in the worse manner possible. Thus, creating a black market. Prohibiting behavior people find "bad" is silly. Why not make sky diving illegal then? It's dangerous too.

4: People who use drugs now will continue to use if they're legal or not. What stops drug use is awareness. It is unlikely that if meth were suddenly legalized tomorrow that i would want to go and purchase meth.

5: Arresting drug is not a solution. Arresting someone who's been using heroin, who may have never committed a violent crime in the past. Spending money to house them, feed them, and clothe them for ridiculous sentences (50,60 year sentences) costs nearly $47,102 [http://www.lao.ca.gov...] a year. Yet, serial killers get released before they do, and often the drug users come out of prison as hardened criminals.

6: Since what i have stated above is true, this would mean the comsumption of drugs that are illegal is at it's highest point now. Which means that continuing the drug war will do nothing to improve conditions.

My solution:

Regulate illegal drugs like alcohol, the drug war is a failure
BlackVoid

Con

Thanks to pro for his interesting points.

1. He says criminalizing something increases its use and cites Prohibition. But it appears my opponent doesn't need my help to defeat this argument, as he himself points out that there is "no single compilation of Prohibition statistics which would enable us to determine the degree of success which Prohibition enjoyed during its lifetime." Based off what he says alone, you can determine that Prohibition based arguments should not be made because there's no reliable way to determine whether it decreased alcohol use or not.

2. Assuming the Gateway theory is false, I dont see how this supports legalization, which is not related to the Gateway theory.

He also brings up how drug users have to go through a long process to get drugs when they are illegal. This is actually why we should keep drugs illegal. All those things you have to do to get an illegal drug are great preventative measures, as obviously its much harder to get meth from a trustworthy underground dealer and crime associates then to walk into the nearest Walgreens.

3. I'm aware criminalizing drugs doesn't solve the problem. It does limit it, however, as shown in point 2. Also, you say that "Prohibiting behavior people find "bad" is silly". So then why not legalize rape and murder? Those are "bad"

4. Awareness definitely limits drug use. However, many people still want to use them because they believe the short term high they get from them outweighs the long term health problems. For this reason, jail is necessary to create an additional deterrent to drug use. After all, two deterrants is better than one.

5. His argument seems to be that incarcerating drug users is expensive. However, this is not unique to drug users. It costs a lot of money to incarcerate rapists, abusers, and murderers as well. Doesnt mean we should legalize those respective crimes. Also, I ask my opponent to give an example of a drug user being sentenced to "50,60 year sentences". Finally, he says drug users come out of jail worse than when they went in. Again, I suppose we should release everybody from jail then since its not just drug users who become hardened from prison time.

6. The only argument I see is that drug usage is at a high point. I will argue in my points that drug usage would me much worse if legalized.

My arguments.

1. Legalizing drugs will spike drug use dramatically.

My opponent advocates selling drugs in stores, just like alcohol. There are a few differences between this and keeping them illegal. Some of these my opponent himself stated.

To use drugs now, you have to

1. Be willing to break the law. This alone rules out a lot of people.
2. Know somebody associated with drugs or a drug dealer
3. Know said dealer is trustworthy
4. Buy the drugs without getting caught by the po-lice.
5. Use the drug without getting caught.

My opponent sells drugs in your neighborhood Wal-mart. To get drugs in his world, people have to

1. Walk into Wal-Mart
2. But the drug.

Thats it. There is no risk involved. Therefore there is no deterrence effect. Without that, there's no logical way you can tell me that World 2 would not have more drug use than World 1.

So, with more people turning to drugs for stress relief or fun in light of their legalization, you have so many people getting sick from drugs that it can be destructive to society. This is obvious because drug users o indeed become severely ill quite often. Source 1 explains that over 958,000 illegal drug users required an emergency hospital visit in 2006. Expect this number to double or triple if drugs are made legal. So basically, a vote for legalization equals a vote for adding thousands of people to our yearly death toll from drugs.

Point 2: International Law

My opponent says in comments that this debate is about legalization in the US and A.

The United States is one of 180 nations that have agreed to and ratified the Single Convention on Narcotic Substances Act of 1961 and the Psychotropic Substances Act of 1978. These international treaties mandate that all participating nations criminalize drug use. The Single convention Treaty states, (2), "each Party shall adopt such measures as will
ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession,
offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery, importation and exportation of drugs
contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of
such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences
when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate
punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty"

The Psychotropic Substances act reinforces these provisions for drugs discovered after the initial treaty, (3).

So, the United States is bound by international law to keep drug related crime illegal. If my opponent still wants to go against this and legalize drugs, he must prove that violating international law is in the best interest of the US.

Thank you and I urge a con vote.

1. http://www.nida.nih.gov...
2. http://www.incb.org... (Article 36)
3. http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
MitchyMill

Pro

MitchyMill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MitchyMill

Pro

MitchyMill forfeited this round.
BlackVoid

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
MitchyMill

Pro

MitchyMill forfeited this round.
BlackVoid

Con

I've nothing to refute. I appreciate any votes.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
BillBonJovi
I think the reason MitchyMill de-activated his account was because I defeated him in my Ronald McDonald Debate.
I think the guy wanted a zero-debate-loss record...
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Alright, thats fine.
Posted by MitchyMill 5 years ago
MitchyMill
oh no no no, just for the US. But every country would be nice too.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
I'm assuming you advocate legalizing for every country?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
MitchyMillBlackVoidTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
MitchyMillBlackVoidTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 5 years ago
LaissezFaire
MitchyMillBlackVoidTied
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