The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
mghee188
Con (against)
Losing
5 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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 15421
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

socialpinko

Pro

I was just in a debate over drug legalization but my opponent forfeited most of the rounds so it wasn't really much of a debate. That's why I figured I would try my luck with another opponent.

I will take the pro position for the legalization of all drugs. Con will take the argument against the legalization of any or all drugs.

Round 1: Acceptance, Definitions
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing arguments, Voters

Definitions:

Drug: A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

Legalization: to make lawful or legal
http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
mghee188

Con

I accept this debate. I accept the argument against the legalization of any or all drugs.

Definitions:
(1) illegal - Prohibited by law.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

(2) drugs - (the full definition from the website)
a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
3. Obsolete A chemical or dye.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

I argue that drug prohibition has not lead to decreased levels of consumption(http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov......). In fact data shows that overall drug use has only increased over the years.

Making drugs illegal has not brought down levels of use and has created a black market for drug-users. Now people have to interact with drug cartels to get their fix. This has lead to increased violence as discrepencies cannot be settled legally but people are left to their own to settle their problems.

Legalizing drugs means that the government can not only bring in revenue from an untapped industry but can regulate it to see that people are not getting their pot laced.

Also, legalizing drugs means that addicts do not necessarily have to commit crime to feed their habit but can seek help without the fear of prosecution.

I argue that taking drugs is the same thing as drinking alcohol. It is up to the individual to use them in a responsible manner and the government has no right to tell a person what they can or cannot put into their own bodies.
mghee188

Con

So making drugs legal will cut down on violence? I beg to differ.

Legalizing drugs means that the government can not only bring in revenue from an untapped industry but can regulate it to see that people are not getting their pot laced.
- People lace pot so they can have a high that last longer, just because the government gives it to someone "un-laced" doesn't mean that person isn't going to lace it and re-sell it.

Also, legalizing drugs means that addicts do not necessarily have to commit crime to feed their habit but can seek help without the fear of prosecution.
- They still will have to be in fear, just because they get a few fixes doesn't mean their set. They are eventually going to have to up the dose of whatever they are taking. When they run out of the supply they are taking which is available to them so easily, they are eventually going to have to find a alternate source to gain more of their drug of choice; even if to them that means violence.

I argue that taking drugs is the same thing as drinking alcohol. It is up to the individual to use them in a responsible manner and the government has no right to tell a person what they can or cannot put into their own bodies.
- You can become addicted to both, but once addicted it is hard for you to quit. Giving drugs to a drug addict you really think they are going to be responsible in taking those? Also the government does have the right to tell you what you can put in your body especially if what you are putting in your body can harm others.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

"People lace pot so they can have a high that last longer, just because the government gives it to someone "un-laced" doesn't mean that person isn't going to lace it and re-sell it."

I'm not talking about someone lacing their own pot after they buy it. I'm talking about dealers who lace it to get their customers addicted. And who's going to buy off some guy off the street when they can get it from a drug store and be sure it's not laced. People don't buy cigarretes or alcohol off the streets. Why should it be different for something like pot?

"When they run out of the supply they are taking which is available to them so easily, they are eventually going to have to find a alternate source to gain more of their drug of choice; even if to them that means violence."

This is the same thing that happens with alcohol. And if an addict knows he/she won't face prosecution for their addiction they are more likely to seek rehabilitation instead of commiting violence.

"Giving drugs to a drug addict you really think they are going to be responsible in taking those?"

As you are making the claim that no one can be responsible with drugs it is up to you to prove it.

"Also the government does have the right to tell you what you can put in your body especially if what you are putting in your body can harm others"

It is also up to you to show why all drugs inherently hurt others.

"So making drugs legal will cut down on violence? I beg to differ."

I have given reasons why making drugs does not reduce usage or violence and that legalizing drugs will reduce violence and all you have said is that you beg to differ. You have not refuted my reasoning.
mghee188

Con

I'm not talking about someone lacing their own pot after they buy it. I'm talking about dealers who lace it to get their customers addicted. And who's going to buy off some guy off the street when they can get it from a drug store and be sure it's not laced. People don't buy cigarettes or alcohol off the streets. Why should it be different for something like pot.
- What about people who aren't old enough to buy it from drug stores. They are going to have to get it from somewhere; for instance your a teenager who can't get it, they are going to buy it from someone else - and that dealer is going to make sure those kids come back to him, especially if he has "the good stuff".

This is the same thing that happens with alcohol. And if an addict knows he/she won't face prosecution for their addiction they are more likely to seek rehabilitation instead of committing violence.
-What proof do you have that they are more likely to seek rehabilitation? I would have to kindly disagree with that assumption, if an addict is knows he or she wont face prosecution what makes them any less violent?

As you are making the claim that no one can be responsible with drugs it is up to you to prove it.
It is also up to you to show why all drugs inherently hurt others.
I have given reasons why making drugs does not reduce usage or violence and that legalizing drugs will reduce violence and all you have said is that you beg to differ. You have not refuted my reasoning.
- You however have not been able to show me adequate proof that legalizing drugs will make people less violent, and you have also forgot to show me proof that making drugs legal addicts or more likely to seek help. The argument is making drugs legal and you have not stated a specific drug we have been using marijuana for examples, what about students who almost have died from not even smoking marijuana. In the article I have provided students laced brownies with weed selling them to fellow students and sending them to hospitals - this happens when drugs are illegal making them more available to people of a certain age doesn't mean they are going to be more responsible. For example I also attached a story of a mother who thought it was smart to give her child and their friends weed, because they were in a safe place. How do you know who will be responsible or not?

http://albany.patch.com...

http://www.fox8.com...
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

"What about people who aren't old enough to buy it from drug stores. They are going to have to get it from somewhere; for instance your a teenager who can't get it, they are going to buy it from someone else - and that dealer is going to make sure those kids come back to him, especially if he has "the good stuff"."

By this logic should we ban anything which has an age limit? Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex all have age limits and of course people under age will want to do those things but that is no argument against legalization for responsible adults.

"What proof do you have that they are more likely to seek rehabilitation? I would have to kindly disagree with that assumption, if an addict is knows he or she wont face prosecution what makes them any less violent?"

I am talking about a case in which an addict feeds his addition because he knows he can't get help because he may be arrested. I am saying that legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem.

" I also attached a story of a mother who thought it was smart to give her child and their friends weed, because they were in a safe place. How do you know who will be responsible or not?"

How do you know no one can be responsible? And I am not advocating legalizing drugs for children. This would have happened regardless if drugs were legal or not.

"You however have not been able to show me adequate proof that legalizing drugs will make people less violent"

I cannot adequately show that because drugs are still illegal in the United States. I could show violent crime rates in countries like Holland which have at least decriminalized marijuana but there are several other factors at work and many differences between Holland and the U.S.

"what about students who almost have died from not even smoking marijuana."

There were over 37,000 alcohol related deaths just last year in the U.S.[1] It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. True one can be harmed by smoking it(same as cigarretes) or have accidents related to intoxicating effects(same as alcohol) but marijuana related deaths every year in the U.S. are much lower than alcohol or cigarrete related deaths.

"In the article I have provided students laced brownies with weed selling them to fellow students and sending them to hospitals - this happens when drugs are illegal making them more available to people of a certain age doesn't mean they are going to be more responsible."

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. If the student knew the bud was laced then that is there right to ingest it just as it is one's right to ingest large amounts of alcohol or smoke three packs a day. If they did not know then that just reenforces my point that government regulation of drugs will cause less rates of lacing and that the govt. can regulate what is grown or sold.

[1]http://www.cdc.gov...
mghee188

Con

I am talking about a case in which an addict feeds his addition because he knows he can't get help because he may be arrested. I am saying that legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem.

- So you are saying "legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem" do you have any proof? Or are you making an assumption based on what you think may happen? To me that doesn't sound like it's going to solve the problem it sounds to me your supposing this would work.

How do you know no one can be responsible? And I am not advocating legalizing drugs for children. This would have happened regardless if drugs were legal or not.

- If this is going to happen regardless or not what is the point of making it legal? So it can be made more accessible for people, or as you put it making sure the customers aren't getting the pot that is laced? Either way like you said things like this would happen if drugs are legal or not - why go through all the trouble of fighting to make it legal then?

I cannot adequately show that because drugs are still illegal in the United States. I could show violent crime rates in countries like Holland which have at least decriminalized marijuana but there are several other factors at work and many differences between Holland and the U.S.

- You said it yourself its not legal its "decriminalized" and also like you stated "several other factors" There are many other factors at play besides making drugs legal. It's not drugs that need to be legal it has something to do with the people as well.

There were over 37,000 alcohol related deaths just last year in the U.S.[1] It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. True one can be harmed by smoking it(same as cigarettes) or have accidents related to intoxicating effects(same as alcohol) but marijuana related deaths every year in the U.S. are much lower than alcohol or cigarette related deaths.

-Can you show me proof please that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana? Was this actually stated somewhere because at the bottom your discussing marijuana related deaths; were those deaths due to overdose, can you provide me with the study or the full article you found this is.

I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. If the student knew the bud was laced then that is there right to ingest it just as it is one's right to ingest large amounts of alcohol or smoke three packs a day. If they did not know then that just reinforces my point that government regulation of drugs will cause less rates of lacing and that the govt. can regulate what is grown or sold.

- My argument is once again people are not responsible, but as you stated things like this are going to happen regardless. Government regulation though doesn't lessen the rates; the customers can still buy it and lace it themselves and possibly even sell it for profit - what is stopping them from selling their product after they buy it.
Debate Round No. 4
socialpinko

Pro

"If this is going to happen regardless or not what is the point of making it legal? So it can be made more accessible for people, or as you put it making sure the customers aren't getting the pot that is laced? Either way like you said things like this would happen if drugs are legal or not - why go through all the trouble of fighting to make it legal then?"

Because it is an injustice for nonviolent offenders who have not hurt anybody to be fined or sent to prison. You could make the same argument about alcohol. Some people are irresponsible so we should make it illegal for everyone and send people who are not hurting anybody to prison. Things like thise will happen whether drugs are legal or illegal. Bud is actually pretty easy to come by. Police should spend their time fighting to stop people who actualy hurt others with their actions. Not fighting to send some guy who smokes pot every once in a while to prison.

============================================================================

"You said it yourself its not legal its "decriminalized" and also like you stated "several other factors" There are many other factors at play besides making drugs legal. It's not drugs that need to be legal it has something to do with the people as well."

I'm not sure exactly what your argument is supposed to be here. I can't understand what it is you are trying to say so unfortunately I cannot respond.

============================================================================

"Can you show me proof please that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana? Was this actually stated somewhere because at the bottom your discussing marijuana related deaths; were those deaths due to overdose, can you provide me with the study or the full article you found this is."

One would have to consume 1/3 of one's body weight in bud in fifteen minutes for the dosage to be lethal. http://www.sirened.com...

============================================================================

"My argument is once again people are not responsible, but as you stated things like this are going to happen regardless. Government regulation though doesn't lessen the rates; the customers can still buy it and lace it themselves and possibly even sell it for profit - what is stopping them from selling their product after they buy it."

You have not shown any proof that government regulation will not lessen rates. And who is going to buy bud from someone off the street when they can buy it in a drugstore and know what goes into their bud ad not just take some strangers word for it? There is not a black market for alcohol or cigarretes. Why? Because people can buy them legally and without the risk and because when people buy alcohol or ciarretes from a legal place of business they have a sense of security that what they are buying is more safe than if they had bought it from some guy off the street.

============================================================================

VOTE PRO!
mghee188

Con

Because it is an injustice for non violent offenders who have not hurt anybody to be fined or sent to prison. You could make the same argument about alcohol. Some people are irresponsible so we should make it illegal for everyone and send people who are not hurting anybody to prison. Things like these will happen whether drugs are legal or illegal. Bud is actually pretty easy to come by. Police should spend their time fighting to stop people who actually hurt others with their actions. Not fighting to send some guy who smokes pot every once in a while to prison.

Except alcohol is illegal unless you are 21 or older. You still no where in this debate told me the legal age that you were going to make "bud" accessible. So leave it to the police to judge which drug dealers are harming others - that is ultimately what your saying. They probably sent that guy to prison because he did something reckless while he was high; people who smoke think its okay to get behind a steering wheel because some don't know their limits.

My response was you made a comment about people who are violent it's different factors, I wanted to know what factors you were talking about. Also you mentioned something about Holland decriminalized marijuana but you showed me no proof of people being less violent with that statement; which was my point of writing that.

One would have to consume 1/3 of one's body weight in bud in fifteen minutes for the dosage to be lethal. http://www.sirened.com...

- I looked at that website and to be honest I do not believe that is a scholarly site for two reasons, one when I tried finding that information it was no where to be found on that site, and secondly no scholarly article states the drug as "bud" they right out the full word - marijuana.

You have not shown any proof that government regulation will not lessen rates. And who is going to buy bud from someone off the street when they can buy it in a drugstore and know what goes into their bud ad not just take some strangers word for it? There is not a black market for alcohol or cigarettes. Why? Because people can buy them legally and without the risk and because when people buy alcohol or cigarettes from a legal place of business they have a sense of security that what they are buying is more safe than if they had bought it from some guy off the street.
- You have not shown me anything in which they law they would like to be put in place. In that you would need to verify age and a couple of other factors especially for the people that would like to go into these pharmacies and just "buy bud" as you put it. Except people still buy alcohol and cigarette's of the street if they are not of age - so once again legalizing drugs teens and young adults are still going to have to go to these random guys on the street to get "their fix'

Thanks for the debate!!
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
@mghee188- Sorry. I like using the word bud. The word marijuana makes me sick.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 5 years ago
bradshaw93
socialpinkomghee188Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ok debate. good arguments from both
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
socialpinkomghee188Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkomghee188Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments could benefit from clarity, however Pro did have more warrant 1/3.