The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Drug Legalization

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 7 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,345 times Debate No: 8951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (40)
Votes (7)

 

mongeese

Pro

By drug legalization, I mean the legalization (as in, it is made legal, and not illegal by law) of all drugs for all people at or above the age of responsibility that are mentally stable, have no felony record, and promise not to give drugs to minors.

This assumes that people are still allowed to ban the use of recreational drugs on their own private property, and the government is allowed to ban the use of certain drugs on certain public property, such as schools.

Naturally, an argument must first be made against the legalization of drugs, as all things are legal by default until they are made illegal. As such, my opponent will have the real Burden of Proof, and I await his or her arguments.
tkubok

Con

Thanks for my opponent for making this debate.

As for the burden of Proof, I believe this is not the way society works. This is exactly why the FDA exists to test drugs before they enter into the general public(1). Therefore, the true burden of proof is upon the person who wants a drug legalized. Any drug has possible side-effects, and thus are banned, until someone can provide a sufficient reason or requirement for its useage. This has been the same for drug useage such as Medicinal Marijuana, which was banned first, until a convincing argument was made to make an exception for its ban.

However, I am not completely void of arguments. Here are my arguments.

1. Legalization of all drugs runs the risk of dangerous drugs that have not been tested.(2) This makes the FDA a useless organization. If all drugs are legal, how could we possibly differentiate between the drugs that are lethal, and the drugs that are not? Illegal drugs exist for a reason, and committees to test if new drugs on the market do not contain such hazards, also exist for a reason. Imagine a pharmaceutical company, creating a new drug that would supposedly cure cancer. Except that this drug has a side-effect; Brain damage. Its a shame that if an organization that tested, and checked whether the product was completely safe, had existed, the drug which flooded the markets, wouldnt have made it to the pharmacies and hospitals. There are benefits to having specific bans on specific drugs that are harmful.(3)

2. Legalization of drugs will only lead to more drug abusers. Even in todays society, where there are already strict penalties and crack-down on drug depots, do we have drug abusers and junkies. Legalization will not only increase the amount, but also the frequency of these drug junkies. And drugs like cocaine isnt on the same level as alchohol in regards to addiction, and is much more dangerous than smoking in regards to health.

3. The effects of most drugs are long-lasting. The laws that currently exist, for, say smokers, is that someone cannot smoke on the premise of his/her workplace if the workplace strictly enforces a non-smoking policy. However, if this were in regards to Cannibis, or even Cocaine, even if the worker were to smoke or snort it OUTSIDE of the premise of the workplace, if he were to return from his lunchbreak, he would still be heavily under the effects of that drug, thus placing his workers and himself, at risk. And sorry, no. Hes not breaking any laws, because:
a). He didnt smoke or snort the drug in question on the premise of the workplace, and the owner of the premise cannot say anything as to what his/her workers do on the sidewalk/in his own car.
b). Drugs are legal, according to your twisted worldview!

I have a few more arguments, but ill just leave it as is. :D

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.straightdope.com...
3. http://www.fda.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

So, you think that things are illegal by default, instead? Technically, a reason has to be made to make something illegal. I will argue against the FDA's plan. Something that has side effects should not be banned because of it. The discovery of a side effect in a drug is necessary to call it illegal, but until a harmful side effect can be found in a drug, it is, by default, legal. Additionally, there is no reason to ban something just because it harms the user. It's their own choice whether to harm themselves or not. That's why "dangerous side effects" is a poor argument against drug legalization.

"1. Legalization of all drugs runs the risk of dangerous drugs that have not been tested...."
Let's look at your specific argument, a cure for cancer that causes brain damage. After the drug is tested, and it is discovered that it causes brain damage, when it is sold, it would have a label that says, "Warning: Causes Brain Damage." If somebody feels that having cancer is worse than the brain damage, then he or she can use this new drug. There's no good reason to stop somebody from making that decision on their own.
If a drug has not been tested, it would say, "Warning: Untested." So, any smart person would stay away, but if somebody wants to use it, who are we to stop them?
So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal?

"2. Legalization of drugs will only lead to more drug abusers...."
Well, if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. It's their choice. Plus, it only speeds up natural selection [1]. All of the people who have the will to mess up their lives would be eliminated, leaving only the people who don't abuse drugs to live on. Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool. We could just teach in science class that recreational drugs are bad, and the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die.

"3. The effects of most drugs are long-lasting...."
The owner of the workplace could easily forbid all of his workers from using drugs during work on the basis that it is dangerous to the workers and would probably injure somebody [2]. Sure, the example may be of Chinese governments, but the employers could easily be given the power to ban drug usage for his or her own employees when the effect of the drug will last through working hours.

Just in case I lose the BoP battle, here is my argument for drug legalization.

1. It's their own choice.
If a guy wants to damage his own body, why should government stop him? It's his choice, and he wants to harm himself. He obviously has decided that the fun outweighs the bodily damage, even after being told that the drugs are dangerous. Is he really doing anything bad?

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://chinadigitaltimes.net...
tkubok

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, although i will crush him mercilessly.

So you want to argue agains the FDA? Great. Are you aware that the FDA manages the many medicines given to children? After all, children also require medicine just as much as adults do. Now, let us pose a hypothetical situation where the FDA was non-existant. The over the counter drugs, now contain harmful substances. Now, one specific spray-on drug, contains DDT, a substance which is known to cause cancer. The item in question, has its ingredients labeled, however, according to FDA standards, a drug must also label its possible side effects as well as banning those drugs which has more harmful results than good results(1)... Woops! The FDA doesnt exist. Congratulations. Youve flooded the market with a drug that does more harm than good.

This is what you fail to understand. The FDA doesnt exist to only ban drugs that have some harmful side effects. After all, ANY drug can have harmful side effects. However, the FDA exists to protect the population, a population which is ignorant of terms such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or arsenic. This is why the specific process of the FDA, is to first, legalize a drug for prescription purposes only, so that DOCTORS with medical degrees who understand the terminology, and side effects, can hand out these drugs to the patients who are both required, and who are suitable to receive these drugs. The FDA also PREVENTS these drugs that have MORE harm than benefits, from reaching the population in the first place. It is too late for a drug company to be indited for fraud and mislabeling, if the product has already reached a million people. Your position is absurd.

By arguing against the FDA, you have essentially made every drug, an over the counter drug. If the general public was educated enough to understand the risks involved, as well as to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm, then we wouldnt need doctors anymore. It is their own choice. However, there is a difference between choice, and an INFORMED consent.

1. "....it would have a label that says, "Warning: Causes Brain Damage.""-You
Sorry. The FDA is the regulatory committee which has placed statutes as to what a label should include.(2) In other words, the FDA will only approve a drug, after studying both the clinical trials, and the proposed warning label on the Drug. If the drug does not have sufficient warnings, or fails to warn a potential hazard, the drug is pulled and the FDA bans it until it is fixed.
"...it would say, "Warning: Untested.""-You
Again, sorry. The FDA regulates what is placed on a label. Without it, it is up to the discretion of the Drug company whether to warn the user. There is nothing to stop the company from lying. Nor is there a reason to ban the drug if the drug blatantly lied, according to your view of not banning any drugs. Sure, the company could possibly receive a penalty or a fine. But the drugs would stay nonetheless. If the public is lucky, this will become a scandal, and people will know about the drug, atleast those who are smart enough to watch the news. If not, millions of people will continue to use the drug.
"So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal?"-You
First, several combinations of drugs can be harmful. However, most of these drugs which are harmful if taken together with another, are prescription drugs. Therefore, only a doctor understands the risks. However, if we make them all over-the-counter drugs, then there is no way for the general public to understand what combination of drugs are harmful. This is also why not many drugs have the lethal combinations written on the label, because there are just too many to list.
Second, not everyone has an internet. Not everyone uses the internet. Not everyone has the time to look up every drug combination and its alternative names. Not everyone reads the label. If Nyquill suddenly placed a harmful agent into its liquid gel caps, how many people do you think, will take the time to read the "Warning, may cause severe drowsiness, stomach pain, headache, and potential cancer"? Hell, Ive never read the warning on my Advil bottle.

2. "if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead."-You
Awesome. So you dont care about the homeless, the druggies, and rehab centres and all that? Clearly youve never had a family member who was a drug addict.
"Plus, it only speeds up natural selection"-you
Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so dont try and comment on it.
I cant believe youre making the following argument.
"the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die."-You
Congratulations. Now youve lost. First off, Suicide is not a trait that is inhereted. And neither is stupidity. Einsteins children are not Nobel prize winners. So, your absurd notion that allowing these people to die, is for the benefit of mankind, will do nothing to eliminate this "trait" from the gene pool. Again, you know nothing of evolution.
Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. Your "live and let die" approach will be throwing these people to the graves.

3. Congratulations. What you are asking is banning drugs. Therefore, our discussion is over. Youve just admitted that we need to ban drugs if they produce harm to other people. This is basically your argument. And congratulations, that is the EXACT reason why we ban drugs. We ban them because of their ability to harm NOT ONLY the user, but also the people around them.(3) This is the point about drugs. While you are taking them, you are not lucid. Therefore, you might walk outside, beleive that the old lady accross the street is a demon, and kill her. Unless you have a room that has no windows, and have it locked from the outside, could you possibly be sure that you will not harm anyone.

As for my opponents arguments:
1. Yes, i agree that anyone who wants to do whatever to their body, is allowed to. I agree that someone has the right to kill themselves. But guess what? It is illegal to suicide by jumping off a tower. The reason being, you are not only harming yourself, but you are also potentially harming others. By jumping off the tower, you might land on someone else, killing them along with you. This is the exact reason why drugs are banned. Its your own choice to destroy your body. But it is not your choice to harm others in the process. We have tons of instances were people who are under the influence of drugs, do things like rape, walk around naked, and kill other people. And all it takes is a little dose. This is different than things like alchohol, as Alchohol is not nearly as addictive as cocaine, bars can actually refuse to sell you alchohol if they believe you to be intoxicated, and being high completely changes your personality to the point that you believe you are the terminator, Sent back in time from the future.(4) Ive never seen a person get so drunk that he believes he is a fictional character from a movie. And by believe, i mean TRULY believe.
So in other words, yes, he is doing anything bad, because he is placing nearby people at risk, at severe risk.

Sources:
1.http://www.fda.gov...
2.http://www.cancer.org...
3.http://www.newsday.com...
4.http://uk.movies.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, although [I] will crush him mercilessly."
Okay, I think I'm getting mixed messages here. Oh, well.

My opponent thinks I want to rid the U.S. of the FDA. As great as that would be, I know that the FDA is necessary. I'm not arguing against the FDA. I'm arguing against the FDA's plan, which involves banning all drugs if they don't see them fit for use.

Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad?

Although visits to doctors for proper prescriptions should be encouraged, it should not be required. People should read the labels. The people at the counter who sell the drugs should be required to inform the consumer to read the labels, and ask their doctor any questions pertaining to any drugs. That would be informed consent.

I think that the FDA should change its plan. It should require things on labels, but other than that, it should be able to ban things outright. If people are told to read the labels upon or prior to purchase, we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug. Of course, nobody is going to want to use an untested drug, and nobody is going to want to re-label said drugs once they've been tested, so the free market would naturally prevent itself from selling untested drugs.

Read the labels on your drugs. Seriously. You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them.

If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead. That boosts the economy. And not all homeless people are druggies.

"Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so don[']t try and comment on it."
No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment. The option to use drugs is natural, and government restrictions are unnatural. We don't kill off the disabled, and we don't kill off druggies. We let nature take its natural toll. If they can survive, then by all means, they survived.

"Congratulations. Now you[']ve lost. First off, [s]uicide is not a trait that is inhereted[sic]. And neither is stupidity."
We don't know that there is no suicide gene, caused by a mutation in a potential gene that triggers the will to survive. There are bound to be genetic traits that increase the chance of becoming an addict, and these traits would be quickly eliminated. And intelligence is largely based in genetics [1].

"Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them."
If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would.

My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal. This is false. That power is reserved for government. However, companies can write rules against the use of drugs, which their employees must abide by, but this would not be punishable by law. It would be punishable by a loss of job. Completely different.

My opponent thinks that drug use instantly turns people into dangerous beasts. People should simply be held liable for their actions. Also, don't forget that I put a clause in defining this debate so that the government can ban drug use in certain buildings (schools, for obvious reasons) and people can ban drug use on their own property. So, a person can probably only use their drugs in their own home. They can't really harm anybody else at that point.

Now, for more contentions:

2. Drug Legalization would help the economy.
Obviously, this would create jobs, and increase participation in the medical market. Drug Legalization can only help the economy.

3. It just throws people in jail.
The police lock up people for possessing illegal drugs. They pile up in jails, unable to do anything productive, hurting the economy. However, they often only use it themselves, with no supplying to minors, so there's really nothing good in throwing people in jail.

"Why can't we wear hats in school?" -wjmelements [2]
"Because it's against the rules."- The Government

1. http://www.scq.ubc.ca...
2. http://www.debate.org...
tkubok

Con

Again, thanking my opponent for his response. And no, i fail to understand where the mixed message resides, although i am hardly surprised as to why you feel this way.

"I know that the FDA is necessary."
The vital part of the FDAs system is to ban drugs that are lethal. Please explain how the FDA can properly enforce their rules if they are unable to ban the drugs.

"Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad?"
I agree. Clearly, this government, that has banned Child Pornography and selling assault rifles to minors, could not possibly tell us what is good and what is bad. Clearly, the government should not be trusted.

Putting that to the side, are you telling me that organizations such as the ATF, which crack down on underage drinking and unregistered illegal firearms passing from person to person, are bad organizations that should not be trusted?

"People should read the labels."
I have a bottle of Advil right infront of me. It states:
Warning: Do not take Advil if taking acetylsalicyclic acid or other products containing Ibuprofen, or if allergic to ASA, salicylates, or anti-inflammatory drugs, or any of its ingredients.
Now, how many people do you think, out of a random group of 1000 from the general public, understand any of those chemical compositions or its derivative names?

Furthermore, will you visit the doctor every time you have a migrane or headache? Or every time your child scrapes his knee? I shall make my point, after you answer said question.

"It should require things on labels"
It already does require things on labels.

"it should be able to ban things outright."
Ill take that as a typo.

"we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug."
First off, one clinical trial, no matter how bad the results, is sufficient to be labeled as "tested". So, the untested drug absurdity is gone from the label.
Secondly, I dont understand what you mean by wanting to "Re-label said drugs once theyve been tested".

"You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them."
My opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never complained or claimed to have said that we need labels. We already have labels. We do not need what is already present. I did however say that the FDA is responsible for what goes on the labels.

"If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead"
First you advocate letting them all die, as that would be good for mankind. Now you advocate that we should heal them, as that would be good for the economy. Please make up your mind.

"No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment."
Eliminated how? Last time i checked, the average lifespan of the disabled, are roughly the same as the lifespan of a non-disabled.

"The option to use drugs is natural"
I dont understand this either. How is it natural to be able to use Cocaine, pot and other drugs that are currently restricted.

"we don't kill off druggies"
Youve done nothing but advocated this. By "kill off", i dont mean that we kill them, i mean to purposefully eliminate them from the population. And that is what you are doing by advocating this. I will quote from you:
"Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool."
Youve basically said that Legalization of Drugs allows us to recognize those with the Suicide "trait", allowing for their immediate removal from society. Therefore, you are advocating that we recognize and remove them from society. Otherwise, why else would we need to recognize them in the first place?

"If they can survive, then by all means, they survived."
Of course they will survive. Suicide is not a trait.

"We don't know that there is no suicide gene"
The problem with this statement, is two fold.
First, suicide is an act. Can you say that Working as a bakery chef, is an inheritable trait? Of course not. For someone to want to become a Bakery chef, there are certain emotions and experiences that are required. The same for Suicide.
Secondly, most drug users are not suicidal. There are many recreational drug users who use, for example, ecstasy, as a sexual enhancement drug.
As for Intelligence being inherited:
Although, by stupidity, i didnt mean intelligence, but rather the specific stupid act, in this case of taking drugs, that is inherited as your suicide trait would naturally conclude, intelligence being inherited is a mixed issue at best. First off, Herrnstein and Murray both caution the interpretation of the bell curve, as they acknowledge that environmental effects could be present. Secondly, studies done by people such as James Flynn have concluded that the IQ has increased over the past 100 years(1) and other studies have determined that various environmental effects have affected the IQ(2).

"If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would."
Even if they ant afford health care or cannot afford to see a doctor on a regular basis whenever they need to buy a bottle of aspirin? Or cannot understand english as well as others?

"My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal."
My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have never even stated that Companies have the authority to ban substances of any kind. That is what the FDA is for. Perhaps my opponent has misunderstood my argument. I am fairly certain that my opponent also believes that driving under the influence of such drugs should also be prohibited, as is walking around the streets freely smoking or snorting these drugs. Therefore, my opponent is advocating that if the usage of the drug places any person nearby in danger or harm, that person should be barred from using such drugs in those specific locations or circumstances. This is essentially why we made drugs illegal.

"People should simply be held liable for their actions."
My opponent has made another foolish argument. He is now stating, that we should be concerned more about the liability than prevention. This is absurd, as anyone would understand that they would rather have prevented a situation rather than be compensated for it. Especially if it involves the loss of a loved one.

"but this would not be punishable by law."
Again, my opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never stated that the Government will punish the worker.

"turns people into dangerous beasts"
If by dangerous, you mean unpredictable, deranged and paranoid, then yes, it does.

"only use their drugs in their own home."
What about the streets. Parks. public locations which contain people, but are not under the jurisdiction of a specific property owner.
Also, i disagree with how drug useage in your own home prevents harm to other people. Firstly, youre only alone in your home if you are a loner or a loser. Secondly, there is a door. You can walk through it. There are windows. You can jump through them.

Now for my opponents contentions:
2. So would Child Pornography help the economy as well. Pass.

3. Again, so do child pornography holders thrown into jails as well. Its hurting the economy. However, illegal stuff are still illegal. Pass.

""Why can't we wear hats in school?" -wjmelements"
Hats dont hurt anyone. No one goes on a killing spree because they were wearing a hat. Drugs do. People go on killing sprees all the time because they were under the influence of drugs.

Let me ask you this, as a final question in this round. Who would you hold liable if a man who was high on cocaine, went into a public school, killed a dozen children and then proceeded to shoot himself?

Sources:
1. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51.
2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of Intelligence: Theories, Measurements, and
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

The vital part of the FDA[']s system is to ban drugs that are lethal. Please explain how the FDA can properly enforce their rules if they are unable to ban the drugs."
They can still label the drugs, which is sufficient.

"I agree. Clearly, this government, that has banned Child Pornography and selling assault rifles to minors, could not possibly tell us what is good and what is bad. Clearly, the government should not be trusted."
You're using examples where government has been right. Government has been wrong before. Prohibition, which is similar to making drugs illegal, had horrible effects on America, including the creation of Mafias, the loss of tax dollars, and the increase in power of the black market. All of these continue with drug illegalization.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Putting that to the side, are you telling me that organizations such as the ATF, which crack down on underage drinking and unregistered illegal firearms passing from person to person, are bad organizations that should not be trusted?"
All authority should be questioned. If we accept authority without question, we'd still be British.

"Now, how many people do you think, out of a random group of 1000 from the general public, understand any of those chemical compositions or its derivative names?"
A Wikipedia could easily be set up to interpret these names. In fact, doctors could compile a Wikipedia that gave information on drugs, ingredients, side-effects, and what happens when multiple drugs are mixed, so that people wouldn't have to visit doctors as often. People would only have to visit their local libraries to use the computers.

"First off, one clinical trial, no matter how bad the results, is sufficient to be labeled as 'tested'. So, the untested drug absurdity is gone from the label."
The FDA could require a certain number of trials before a drug can remove the "Untested" label. Furthermore, once the "Untested" label is removed, a new label, warning of adverse side-effects, would be put in its place.

"Secondly, I don[']t understand what you mean by wanting to 'Re-label said drugs once they[']ve been tested'."
Why stock up on drugs with the "Untested" label when you're going to have to remove all of those labels and put the new, detailed labels on every single container?

"My opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never complained or claimed to have said that we need labels. We already have labels. We do not need what is already present. I did however say that the FDA is responsible for what goes on the labels."
Control over labels is all the FDA really needs.

"First you advocate letting them all die, as that would be good for mankind. Now you advocate that we should heal them, as that would be good for the economy. Please make up your mind."
If they realize that they made a bad choice, and want to be healed, we heal them.
Otherwise, they just continue to kill themselves happily.

"Eliminated how? Last time [I] checked, the average lifespan of the disabled, are roughly the same as the lifespan of a non-disabled."
You have no source for where you checked.
There is, however, bound to be a slight difference, as living with a disability is harder than living without one.

"You[']ve basically said that Legalization of Drugs allows us to recognize those with the Suicide 'trait', allowing for their immediate removal from society. Therefore, you are advocating that we recognize and remove them from society. Otherwise, why else would we need to recognize them in the first place?"
We don't kill the druggies. That's what the drugs already do.

"Of course they will survive. Suicide is not a trait."
Drugs have negative effects on health. Suicide is no longer necessary.

"First, suicide is an act. Can you say that Working as a bakery chef, is an inheritable trait? Of course not. For someone to want to become a Bakery chef, there are certain emotions and experiences that are required. The same for Suicide."
The inability to recognize drugs as bad is what qualifies them as suicidal. They don't really think that they're suiciding.

"Secondly, most drug users are not suicidal."
But they're still stupid. Which is suicidal in itself.

"Although, by stupidity, [I] didn[']t mean intelligence, but rather the specific stupid act, in this case of taking drugs, that is inherited as your suicide trait would naturally conclude, intelligence being inherited is a mixed issue at best."
Drug use is probably still affected by some genetics. You ignore the argument about the correlation between addiction and genetics. Just because there are environmental factors doesn't mean that there is no genetic factor. The increase of IQ over time is an argument for natural selection.

"Even if they ant afford health care or cannot afford to see a doctor on a regular basis whenever they need to buy a bottle of aspirin? Or cannot understand [E]nglish as well as others?"
Doctor Wikipedia.
If they can't understand English, how are they buying the drug?

"My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have never even stated that Companies have the authority to ban substances of any kind. That is what the FDA is for..."
But some people have no reason not to.
Driving while using drugs should remain illegal. The action being banned there is driving.
Government could ban drug use on certain streets if people complain. This would confine the druggies to their own property.

"He is now stating, that we should be concerned more about the liability than prevention."
The druggie could be prevented from doing his actions between when he leaves his own property and when he harms somebody.

"Parks. public locations which contain people, but are not under the jurisdiction of a specific property owner."
The government still has the power to ban drugs on public property.

"Firstly, you[']re only alone in your home if you are a loner or a loser."
Druggies are usually either loners or losers.

"Secondly, there is a door. You can walk through it. There are windows. You can jump through them."
Such actions would not go unnoticed.

"2. So would Child Pornography help the economy as well. Pass.
3. Again, so do child pornography holders thrown into jails as well. Its hurting the economy. However, illegal stuff are still illegal. Pass."
That is illegal because it involves abuse of minors. This is not so for drugs.

"Let me ask you this, as a final question in this round. Who would you hold liable if a man who was high on cocaine, went into a public school, killed a dozen children and then proceeded to shoot himself?"
He could easily be stopped before he reached the school. Teachers should be allowed to carry handguns. Problem solved.

In conclusion, people have the right to do what they want to their own bodies. Vote PRO.
tkubok

Con

"They can still label the drugs, which is sufficient."
That is not what i asked. I asked HOW the FDA could possibly ENFORCE the LABEL rules.

"You're using examples where government has been right."
Exactly. So the government has been right on many occasions, concerning what is right and wrong. No one is saying that the government has never been wrong. What we are saying, is that on the majority of almost every single aspect, the government has been right. Furthermore, by bringing up the Mafia and the Black Market, you are essentially making an argument to support that we should legalize something in order to stop a specific crime organizations profits. If this is the case, I fail to see how you could possibly disregard things like Weapons traffic or sex slave traffic, when the legalization of such actions would inevitably lead to the loss of power from the black market.

"All authority should be questioned."
Now youve contradicted yourself. Are you going to keep questioning the child pornography laws? Of course not. So clearly, there comes a point where you no longer have to question many aspects that the authority has placed as illegal.

"A Wikipedia could easily be set up to interpret these names."
If knowledge of drugs can be attained through 15 minutes of wikipedia, we would no longer need to spend 4 years in university, an additional 3 years in medical or pharmaceutical schools, and another 3-7 years in internship. Furthermore, this is regarding people who are actually knowledgable to use the internet. My parents cannot. Should we let them, as well as half the population which cannot or do not know how to use the internet, hang out to dry?
Also, Library computer useage is not free.

"The FDA could require a certain number of trials before a drug can remove the "Untested" label."
Failed due to the fact that the FDA has no way of enforcing such a rule. The drugs would still end up on the counters, with the proper "Tested" label, while the FDA complains to the company. If you had answered my first question, we couldve addressed this. However, you chose not to.

"when you're going to have to remove all of those labels and put the new"
You dont have to. When a new cereal box cover comes out, the stores do not remove the boxes, ship them back to corporate, where they replace the covers. Instead, the old boxes are simply thrown out and replaced with the new ones.

"Control over labels is all the FDA really needs."
Again, enforcement issues arise.

"If they realize that they made a bad choice, and want to be healed, we heal them."
Many realize they made a bad choice after going through rehab. This is what an intervention is. What you are proposing, is letting them rot until they themselves realize theyve made a bad choice. Sorry, most cases do not work that way.

"You have no source for where you checked."
Gladly.(1)

"We don't kill the druggies. That's what the drugs already do."
By flooding the streets with legal drugs that the druggies would otherwise not be able to get their hands on, yes you are. This is exactly like flooding the streets with guns. Sure, youre not killing the people who were shot. But you gave them the means to do so, and therefore you, or your legislation to abolish gun registering and gun control laws, did.

"Drugs have negative effects on health. Suicide is no longer necessary."
Yet, before you state:
"discover even more people who have suicidal traits"
What i am saying, is that taking drugs is not suicide at all. Infact, more people die from Alchohol, than drugs.(2) Infact, more people die from sexual behaviors than drugs. If you are talking about a shortened lifespan, then i agree, people who do drugs, have a shorter lifespan.(3) But wait. Cigarrette smokers also have similar lifespans as well(4). So are all people who smoke, suicidal? Of course not. Your argument fails miserably.

"The inability to recognize drugs as bad is what qualifies them as suicidal."
As stated in this source(2), the death toll from car accidents is higher than drug related deaths. Are these people, who are unable to recognize driving as bad, qualify them as suicidal? of course not. Your argument fails again.

"But they're still stupid. Which is suicidal in itself."
Again, you are advocating that we let people die because they were stupid. That is not a sufficient reason to let someone die. We all do stupid things from time to time, no one is perfect. The consequence, however, should never be witholding treatment, or letting them die. Nor should it be to make it easier to do the stupid thing.

"Drug use is probably still affected by some genetics."
Youve brought that up twice, with no source. Really really hoping for something to be true, does not make it true. Your argument fails again.

"The increase of IQ over time is an argument for natural selection."
You failed to understand why the Increase in IQ over time is not an argument for natural selection, if you had chosen to read the books i stated in my source.(5) In it, it states that IQ can also change within the difference of the level of education given. The reason IQ has increased is because our educational standards have increased. The creation of Public schools which give all children access to knowledge, has increased our IQ. 100 years ago, when the great deppression gave way to few children being able to go to school, the IQ was low. Now its high.

"If they can't understand English, how are they buying the drug?"
Because they have ailments. Its hard to believe, but immigrants from other countries who dont speak english, still get headaches.

"The action being banned there is driving."
No, the action being banned isnt driving, it is driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE of drugs.

"Government could ban drug use on certain streets if people complain."
Actually, no. people have tried to complain about smoking in streets, but the government has yet to ban smoking in open areas. Your argument fails again.

"The druggie could be prevented from doing his actions between when he leaves his own property and when he harms somebody"
How could you prevent a druggie from doing anything once hes outside his house with any sort of reliable consistency? Are you saying we should place a cop at every doorstep, in case a druggie comes out and tries to harm someone? What you are proposing is absurd.

"The government still has the power to ban drugs on public property."
Again, tried with Tobacco. Failed.

"Druggies are usually either loners or losers."
Oh, well nice generalization. Are you aware that most drugs such as Ecstasy are used as a sexual enhancement drug at clubs and parties? Clearly they are loners and losers, cause theyre partying and having lots of sex!

"Such actions would not go unnoticed."
Unnoticed by who? Cops cannot stand at your doorway 24/7.

"involves abuse of minors."
And what about the parents who take drugs and abuse their children because of it?

"He could easily be stopped before he reached the school. "
Again, by who?

"Teachers should be allowed to carry handguns."
My opponent has now argued to bring guns to elementary schools. Will my opponents brilliant ideas on how to fix societies problems, ever end?

Furthermore, you didnt answer my question. I asked who you would HOLD LIABLE. Not what you should do to prevent it.

In conclusion, my opponent has provided poor arguments that have failed countless times, refused to adress my arguments, and proposed absurd ideas in order to limit the harmful aspect of drugs to society. In other words, to constrict Drugs to the point of being banned at almost every location. Vote Con.

Source:
1. http://www.healthieryou.com...
2. http://drugwarfacts.org...
3. http://wiki.answers.com...
4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
5.2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environme
Debate Round No. 4
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nat330 3 years ago
Nat330
Con. Not all drugs are medicinal, and we can not trust that people will use drugs in moderation. Some drugs are highly addictive, and what kind of country would we be If we were to allow that to go on?
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Actually suicide has been proven to be hereditary: http://news.softpedia.com.... And stupidity is also hereditary because the average IQ rate is dropping. The reason for that is smart parents average less then two children, and unintelligent parents average five children.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Question for you, tkubok: did you read all of my sources?

And another thing: I am still awaiting a challenge about schools and guns.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The ddo software always shaves off about 40 characters short of the announced limit, so you really only get about 7960 rather than 8000. It's always done that. Annoying. Those are usually some of my best characters.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Mongeese,
Actually, for some reason, despite having a few words left in the word count, it was cut off. Same for all my other Rounds for some reason. Not sure why DOO did this.

Regardless, the citation and pages were there. And you admit that even if you had the pages, you still wouldnt read it. That is your failure, sir.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
wj, Actually, all drugs used to be legal in the US. If found an empty pre-1900 patent medicine bottle once that listed the ingredients as alcohol, cocaine, and formaldehyde. The instructions were to take a third of glass before every meal to cure pretty much anything that ailed you. I assume the formaldehyde saved later embalming costs. The crackdown banning opium and such potent patent medicines was somewhere around 1900. It was in response to obvious problems.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, the fact that such numbers were present on one citation but not the other led me to believe that it was just extra info about the title of the book. And that's still 22 pages.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
1. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51

What do you think the 29-51 was.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The idea that your oppoents should check out and investigate every book you cite is rather ridiculous, especially with no page numbers.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Mongeese,
Well then, your laziness was the downfall of you. Although i have no idea of verifying whether the book exists in your library, i am extremely doubtful that you checked, as if it was not in your library, that would have been the argument that you would have made in the first place, and you have clearly stated that you are "to lazy to go to the library".

Also, sure, id love to debate teachers and guns.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Bipartisan-Monkey 7 years ago
Bipartisan-Monkey
mongeesetkubokTied
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 AnnaTisci 7 years ago
AnnaTisci
mongeesetkubokTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
mongeesetkubokTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
mongeesetkubokTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeesetkubokTied
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 Yakaspat 7 years ago
Yakaspat
mongeesetkubokTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
mongeesetkubokTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30