The Instigator
Hunton711
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Princess
Pro (for)
Winning
37 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,939 times Debate No: 9070
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (22)
Votes (8)

 

Hunton711

Con

I am strongly against the legalization of drugs except Marijuana, which I don't consider a drug. I expect my oppenent to prove points on the BENEFITS of drugs being legal.
Princess

Pro

Audience, please vote based on presented arguments and not personal opinion.

INTRODUCTION
I am arguing that the purchase, sale, manufacture, transportation, and private usage of all "street drugs" should be legalized within the United States. There are two small exceptions to my argument. First, drugs should not be allowed to be advertised or sold to minors. Second, a person should not be allowed to force drugs upon someone who is unwilling (this includes second hand smoke).

I also care to inform everybody that I do not use drugs. I have never used them once and I will never use them. I personally suggest that everybody should use their free will and choose to stay drug-free, especially children. I also personally suggest that schools, parents, and businesses use their free will to educate children about the harm that drugs cause. Drug abuse is a problem which needs to be solved by a person's free will and not by government force.

I am not arguing this because I believe that drugs are not a problem or that they are not harmful. They are very harmful and drug abuse is a very big problem. I am arguing this because I believe government prohibition will never solve the problem.

THE HARM OF CONTINUING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS
Many people mean well by advocating policies, but they are ineffective and cause blowback. For the below reasons, I am against government prohibition of drugs:

1)Prohibition decreases the supply of drugs (because drugs are harder to obtain now), but not the demand (because many people are still addicted to drugs even during prohibition). When supply is lowered and demand stays the same, the only result is that drugs increase in value.

2)When people are willing to pay more money for drugs due to it's value increase, the drug industry and the black market both profit. How do you think they finance their operations now?

3)Prohibition was tried during the 1920's in the United States to prohibit alcohol. In result, alcohol usage stayed exactly the same, gang/street violence sharply increased.

4)Men and women in the coastguard have to risk their lives fighting against armed boats which carry drugs. Police in the streets have to risk their lives fighting against armed gangs which carry drugs.

5)There is a moral dilemma about prohibition also. What gives government the right to dictate what an individual does to his/her own body? Should we ban automobiles, airplanes, and unhealthy food because they cause many deaths also?

THE BENEFITS OF ENDING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS
Ending government prohibition will not completely solve the problem. But ending government prohibition will give more benefits than harm:

1)Since using drugs would no longer be a crime after prohibition ends, the police and government will be able to focus more of their efforts on other crimes (which actually involve victims) such as murder, rape, theft, fraud, malpractice, and physical abuse.

2)By allowing drugs in the market, they are able to taxed as all items are, increasing revenue for the government. Also, not having to upkeep millions of prisoners would not decrease. This increase of revenue can be used to make down payments on our twelve trillion dollar national debt.

3)By ending prohibition we would all be able to change our mindset on the issue. People battling a terrible addiction will no longer be known as criminals, but as victims. The drug problem will no longer be known as solved just because it is covered up by ineffective legislation. We would acknowledge the government's failure in solving the drug problem and we would be able to try a new solution.

CONCLUSION
People do not use drugs simply because they are legal. Many use them because of peer pressure, lack of knowledge, and/or poor parenting. Many use them to temporarily alleviate the pain of stress, anxiety, depression, and other personal problems.
There are only two ways to stop someone from taking up drugs:
1)Removing ALL drugs from Earth. Which is not possible and poorly emulated by prohibition.
2)Face the problems which make people resort to using drugs. Which would be difficult, but possible.

I am not arguing against prohibition for idealistic reasons. I am not an idealist. I am a realist. I recognize the problems drugs cause and I think it needs to be addressed realistically. I am not a social darwinist. I show genuine concern for the well-being of others. I want to be part of a generation which solves this drug issue once and for all. But before we can go about solving the problem, we need to recognize that government is not the solution. It is the problem.

Ending government prohibition is only a small step towards ending drug abuse, but it is a step which must be taken in order to confront this problem.
Debate Round No. 1
Hunton711

Con

Just throwing it out there, I like the Coast Guard comment. That's what I wanna do with my life. Just funny you said that. Anyways, if we stop the use of drugs, the crime rate will go down. People under the influence of Crack/Cocaine, Meth, etc... are more likely to commit crimes. If we would pay more attention to the halt of drug trafficking other crimes would lower. Okay, I know someone who stole stuff to afford Cocaine. Do you see? We CAN stop the majority of the use of drugs and I'm not including Marijuana. Half the people that do drugs are under pressure or get the idea of doing it by watching others do it. (Again I like point 4 because of the CG) Anyhow, the govt. does have a right to help us lead healthy lifestyles, like gay marriage, homosexuality gives you a higher risk of a disease, abortion isn't healthy mentally. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...
I think we should force the death penalty upon someone who distributes drugs because most of the people that use them, die or get very sick. And wish they were dead. THAT my friend would lower drug usage/distribution.
Princess

Pro

I may be dwelling into another debate here, but I oppose your suggestion of the death penalty because it is ineffective as it gives the criminal a quick and painless escape out of life. If anything, keep them alive and force them to give back the goodness they had taken from the world. Also, I also disagree with some of the other absurd and irrelevant comments you have made, but I do not wish to digress further.

Halting drug trafficking as I said earlier would increase the value of the drugs at best by lowering the supply.

And what exactly gives government the right to micromanage our health too?
When we involve government into social issues and allow them to control our personal lives, we are left with nothing but special interest groups. In this dystopian system you propose, you would call up congress and have your special interests forced upon me against my will, while I would do the same thing at your expense. Involving special interests in government will only result in misery for everyone.

The federal and state governments spend tens of billions of dollars each year to fund the "War on Drugs".
All of your RECENT statistics are describing the current drug economy and they happen to reinforce my argument.
They show that there are still many people committing crimes under the influence of drugs even with the "War on Drugs" in place.

Lastly, I will sum up my main arguments:
1) Prohibition increases the value of drugs, which HELPS the black market and drug industry.
2) Prohibition of alcohol was ineffective in the 1920's
3) Coastguard and police lose their lives because they are forced to fight armed drug dealers.
4) Government controlled by special interests is bad for everybody.
5) Ending prohibition would reduce government spending, and increase revenue.
6) Ending prohibition would allow us to focus on real crimes.
7) Drug usage IS a problem (including marijuana). And prohibition will not solve it.
8) We can only solve the problem by recognizing failure and approaching the situation honestly.

I thank you all for taking the time to read my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chuckles 7 years ago
Chuckles
purple haze has a point. and Lifeisgood, i doubt people who would normally not use hard drugs would all of the sudden start using and get addicted just because they became legalized.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I do not agree with Pro's position, but the argument was very good. Pro takes this one.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
Life is good bud have you ever taken anything? Well I know you havn't, because if you did you would most definitely be singing a different tune. You have been filled up with a load of bollox as a youth and just cant seem to shake it. Well not bollox. Possibilities. But its also possible that you will hit a wall doing about 60miles an hour on your bicycle, but that hasn't stopped you riding your bicycle has it?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Arguments to PRO. Sources to CON.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
I am a bit concerned that the legalization of 'hard' drugs might be encouragement for those who would not normally use them to try it out just once, only to be addicted for the rest of their lives. That's why I'm not completely in favor of drug legalization.

Anyway, my RFD.

Exact same thing as Skeptic's.
Posted by purplehaze 7 years ago
purplehaze
"I also care to inform everybody that I do not use drugs. I have never used them once and I will never use them. I personally suggest that everybody should use their free will and choose to stay drug-free"

Why miss out on any experience life offers? And who are you to suggest that people miss out on such an experience having never experienced it yourself. I personally suggest that everybody take absolutely everything they are given. Well at least once anyway.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Conduct - Tie
S&G - Tie
Argument - Definitively PRO. CON's argument were very weak, unsubstantiated with premises that weren't shown to be correct, and simply overall not convincing at all.
Sources - Tie
Posted by Molinjir 7 years ago
Molinjir
Conduct-Tie
Spelling and grammar-Pro
Arguments-Pro, his were well thought out and detailed.
Sources-Tie
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Tied
S/G: Pro
Arguments: Pro
Sources: Tied
Posted by Princess 7 years ago
Princess
Typo:
The 2nd number in the "THE BENEFITS OF ENDING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS" part of my argument should state that not having to upkeep prisoners would stop the revenue from decreasing.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by DylanRobles 7 years ago
DylanRobles
Hunton711PrincessTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Hunton711PrincessTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Hunton711PrincessTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
Hunton711PrincessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
Hunton711PrincessTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
Hunton711PrincessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Hunton711PrincessTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Hunton711PrincessTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04