The Instigator
sherlock.holmes221B
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Drugs must be made legal

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...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,038 times Debate No: 39883
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

sherlock.holmes221B

Con

Drugs (not medical) from what I know and have studied the science of: Give you a feeling that you are in paradise and tricks the mind depending how strong it is and makes you commit crimes and die. I accept that my opponent disagrees and thus we shall not have a fight :). There are no rules in this debate but please try not to forfeit any rounds. Feel free to make any sources public. Have a good debate!
Stonewall

Pro

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. A brief note: It should be assumed in this debate that any reference to "drugs" means illicit drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and other similar drugs. If this does not jive with my opponent, he can let me know next round.
___

"Give you a feeling that you are in paradise and tricks the mind depending how strong it is and makes you commit crimes and die."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there. That's a tad exaggerated, don't you think? Let's take that piece by piece...

"(Feels like) you are in paradise..."

So far, so good. Something that makes you feel like that can't be too bad.

"...tricks the mind..."

Much like the effects of alcohol. Again, nothing too bad.

"...makes you commit crimes..."

Typically, the only crime being committed is actually buying the drugs. If drugs were legalized, this would obviously not be an issue.

"...and die."

I'm not gonna say drugs have no recorded fatalities. I would be a liar. But the fact remains that deaths as a result of alcohol and illegal drugs are almost exactly the same-- give-or-take five people per 100,000 (1). Tobacco, on the other hand, kills over 100 more people per 100,000 (2). These are startling numbers... how can something that kills almost 150 people a year in America alone be perfectly acceptable and illegal drugs be condemned? And, if this debate were just about marijuana, I could pull the almighty trump-- marijuana has no recorded fatalities (3).
___

There are very few legitimate reasons for a government ban of such drugs. The argument that it's potentially dangerous only goes so far... after all, sky-diving, bungee-jumping, mountain climbing, surgery, or driving a car are all potentially dangerous activities too, but all perfectly legal. Abortion literally kills what is (arguably) a child, and that happens over 3200 times a day in the U.S. alone (4). Now, with all of these truly dangerous activities, how do drugs even compare?

One of the reasons I've heard for keeping drugs illegal is due to their addictive properties. This is somewhat misleading, too. After all, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and even sex are all addictive things as well. Banning these things would be ludicrous, and we should treat illegal drugs with that same mentality.

Legalizing drugs wouldn't cause harm to anyone else. Well, at least not directly. Drugs are only as dangerous as alcohol is to other people. ("So, let's make alcohol illegal too.") Nah, remember Prohibition? Crime rates were sky-high, and not just because of drinking. Organized crime hit a new high and moonshine and black market alcohol were causing all sorts of problems. Just as it was at the end of Prohibition, it'd be in our best interest to legalize it at this rate.

If this is a morality debate, you'll be hard-pressed to find any reasoning for how it's immoral. That, and the government can't make any decisions based on morality. So, this kind of falls flat.

I'm not saying drug use is a good or a bad thing. That's up to the individual to decide. But in a world where we can drink, smoke, gamble, and sky-dive to our heart's content, it seems unreasonable to criminalize drugs.

1. http://www.popsci.com...
2. http://www.realclearscience.com...
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
4. http://www.all.org...
Debate Round No. 1
sherlock.holmes221B

Con

Thank you for your reply. I have thought about your points and before I start on the actual debate I will list the numbers of people that buy and die of drugs, tobacco and alcohol. NOTE: These are not exactly the numbers for there are people dying every day.

Drugs: 250, 000 In the world. Tobacco: over 500,000, Alcohol: 2.5000000

1. I strongly agree about the fact that Tobacco and Alcohol are killing many more people. One could argue that the amount would prove their point right and my point wrong but that person would have growing errors as to say that the amount of deaths is all. Drugs are known to be much stronger and much deadlier than Tobacco and Alcohol and that is why Drugs are banned. Heroin can kill an average person quicker than Alcohol and certainly Tobacco and it would be ridiculous to make such Drugs legal. The main reason why less people have died is because less people have broken the law so to have drugs. It was thought to have alcohol banned in America in 1920 to 1933 and that was one of the main causes of the mafia bosses and the corruption in America started. This was because alcohol was used for dinner parties and personal entertainment. Drugs are more dangerous and if they were made legal they would be top of this list of these poor people that have died.

2. I am aware of the fact that there are many bad things happening in America but why pay no attention to drugs?
Some dishonest people who are very likely to break the law, for their own sake would not take drugs fearing for it to kill them. I am un able to think of any logical reason for drugs to be made legal and as for such people who take dangerous risks such as mountain climbing, skyjumping , diving and so on (forgive me if I got any of these sports wrong) with most of them doing it for charity and them all doing it with protective suit on(some of them for sport). Suicides do happen but the government does not want it and try stop it.

I look forward to hearing your next argument

back to you pro
Stonewall

Pro

"Heroin can kill an average person quicker than Alcohol and certainly Tobacco and it would be ridiculous to make such Drugs legal."

Since when does the speed at which something can kill you matter? I will again use my reckless sport analogy: The risk of hitting the ground from a mile above ground when skydiving is almost certainly more dangerous than heroin, and probably faster. I will elaborate on this more later on.

"The main reason why less people have died is because less people have broken the law so to have drugs."

I think this is debatable, too. Anyone who wants to do heroin is going to find a way to do heroin. Just because it's now legalized doesn't mean that more people are going to do it. Mary Cleveland, a professor at Columbia University, has made similar findings: "Most people choose not to use illicit drugs even when they have cheap and easy access to them. Enforcement can have some effect on light users; regular and problem users will get their drugs even in prison (1)."

"It was thought to have alcohol banned in America in 1920 to 1933 and that was one of the main causes of the mafia bosses and the corruption in America started. This was because alcohol was used for dinner parties and personal entertainment."

Are you implying that drugs aren't/weren't used recreationally? Either way, this does not change the fact that alcohol is still a potentially dangerous substance. A substance's legal status shouldn't hinge on how many people participate in its use-- this is a backwards way of thinking. If everyone started shooting up heroin, by this logic, it stands to reason it would be legalized. We both know this isn't true, though; it would still be condemned. Since alcohol, a potentially dangerous substance and totally comparable to drugs of any sort, is legal, illicit drugs should be as well.

"I am aware of the fact that there are many bad things happening in America but why pay no attention to drugs?
Some dishonest people who are very likely to break the law, for their own sake would not take drugs fearing for it to kill them."

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this relates to any point you're trying to make. Otherwise, I would provide a response. I suppose my best one would be that there are plenty of decent people who do drugs who can control themselves.

"(A)s for such people who take dangerous risks such as mountain climbing, skyjumping , diving and so on... with most of them doing it for charity and them all doing it with protective suit on (some of them for sport)"

By that logic, if people started doing drugs for sport or charity, they would be more acceptable. This clearly does not make any sense. Sky-diving, mountain/cliff climbing and bungee jumping are all insanely dangerous activities, and when done by people who don't know what they're doing, they can be fatal. They can be fatal to those who are experienced. When these activities are not illegal in any way and are just as dangerous as drugs, if not more so, it seems crazy that drugs are still condemned.
___

A point that I would like to introduce here is the fact that we should have the right to put whatever we want into our bodies. Just as we have the right to eat candy all day if we want, or eat McDonald's, smoke cigarettes, drink till we have kidney failure, or use medicine at all, we should have the right to use drugs recreationally. As senior fellow of the Cato Institute Doug Bandow puts it:

"One of the freedoms that should be treated as a legal right is drug use. Making this argument is not to encourage drug use. Rather, it is to hold that government may not properly criminalize drug use... Adults are entitled to ingest substances even if a majority views that decision as foolish... Thus, any analysis of liberty should include protection of the freedom to take drugs. Such a freedom need not be treated as absolute, given the negative impact of drug abuse. However, a free society should affirm and protect individuals who choose to ingest substances which alter their mental and physical states." - (2)

I also extend all of my points that went unrefuted. These include, but are not limited to: The fact that drugs are just as dangerous and addictive as many risky activities that are legal (abortion included), the lack of harm that legalizing drugs would result in, and its moral standing.

1. http://www.mcleveland.org...
2. http://object.cato.org...
Debate Round No. 2
sherlock.holmes221B

Con

Thank you for your reply.

1."Since when did the speed of something that can kill you matter"

If your point is to suggest that I think that the speed makes the Drugs more dangerous, you are on the right track but have not thought about it carefully the certain types of drugs known to this world are: Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Hallucinogen, Methamphetamine and many others that I shall not name for now. The speed of how it kills you is to show how much more powerful it is. Now I shall explain why less people take Drugs to alcohol and tobacco:

*This person does not know where the black market is
*This person knows about the risk of taking drugs
*This person is not depressed or in need of company
*This person does not want to break the law
*This person is scared about what it is like taking drugs
*This person is a teacher and is teaching about the danger of drugs
*This person has had drug problems in the past and does not want to take them
*This person has a loved one taking drugs and is sad about it and is trying to help them

People who are depressed are known to take drugs such as Methamphetamine which is known for mental health cure but is also known to be highly dangerous. Tobacco and alcohol are much less dangerous than drugs and that is why they have been banned. I hope I have answered your first point.

2. Why would people take drugs for charity? My point was that people took huge risks that involve huge amounts of effort like climbing cliffs or mountains where as taking heroin is effortless (although some people would be scared to take it). My point about such a great corruption in America about alcohol being made illegal is that alcohol is not nearly as dangerous as drugs and that is why everyone at the time were so annoyed about it. Drugs are more dangerous and thus should not be made legal.

3. "We have the right to put whatever we like within our bodies"

We have the right to do whatever we like with our bodies? The government of each country has to make sure that its citizens have a right to live and try to stop suicides. But you are right saying that we can do whatever we want putting in substances in our bodies but in this point you forget the idea that it would involve giving money to drug dealers. If the people take drugs it is for either curiosity or depression unaware that it would actually kill them (or not thinking about it) is that it is the government's duty to make sure that this does not happen. The government should help these poor people who feel a need to take drugs.
Stonewall

Pro

"Now I shall explain why less people take Drugs to alcohol and tobacco..."

Thanks, but that's not necessary (and those examples were only so-so anyways). I'm fully aware why someone would not take drugs. I really fail to see what this has to do with furthering your point. I could make almost the same exact list with alcohol, or smoking, or skydiving. There's more than a few reasons why someone would not want to do dangerous things. Its potency is hardly relevent in this case-- dangerous is dangerous is dangerous, and the reasons remain the same.

"Why would people take drugs for charity?"


Below, I have provided a list of the ten strangest things ever done for charity. Some of them far out-weird simply doing drugs. (1)

"My point was that people took huge risks that involve huge amounts of effort like climbing cliffs or mountains where as taking heroin is effortless..."

Your reasonings are grasping at straws. One: Effort made to do something should have absolutely nothing to do with how 'bad' something is for you. That does not make any sense. Two: Mountain climbing is just as easy as taking heroin. The dangers associated with each is equivalent to your practice. I could literally go to the nearest mountain and start climbing. Odds are I wouldn't make it. I could go to my local drug dealer and score some heroin. Odds are I wouldn't make it. However, I could practice and practice with these things and be a total pro at both.

"My point about such a great corruption in America about alcohol being made illegal is that alcohol is not nearly as dangerous as drugs..."

No, people got mad because they had their drug of choice (alcohol) taken away. Your reasoning for why alcohol shouldn't be illegal rests on two things: One, everyone drinks, and is thus okay. This is irrelevant, because the amount of people doing something shouldn't factor into its legal status. Like I said last round, if everyone started doing heroin, this wouldn't make it automatically okay.

Two, you say that alcohol "is not nearly as dangerous as drugs..." This is bunk. Alcohol is the single most harmful drug of them all. Yes, all drugs. This means it outranks tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, shrooms, ecstasy, meth, speed, GHB, crack, and, yes, even heroin. Yes, they also factor in the fact that illicit drugs are not as common. If this doesn't speak to how messed up our system is, nothing will. (2)

"But you are right saying that we can do whatever we want putting in substances in our bodies but in this point you forget the idea that it would involve giving money to drug dealers."

...this doesn't make any sense. You concur that we can do whatever we want with our bodies, but you disagree with the fact that someone should make money off of it? I can't refute this point based simply on the fact that it doesn't make any sense. I guess if we made drugs free, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

"If the people take drugs it is for either curiosity or depression unaware that it would actually kill them... it is the government's duty to make sure that this does not happen."

First off, I think it's pretty safe to say that most people know that drugs are bad. Like, I might be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Second, it is not the government's duty to protect people from doing drugs. It is the state government's duty to protect, according to the Responsibilty to Protect, "populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing." (3) Drug use doesn't really meet any of these criteria. Not by a long shot, actually. Police don't even have an obligation to provide police servies- including protection of citizens (4).

If the government does not even have an obligation to protect these people, then what's the point in having drugs be illegal at all?

1. http://www.oddee.com...
2. http://www.theguardian.com...
3. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
sherlock.holmes221B

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for not forfeiting any rounds
Now onto the debate
1. People take strange risks for charity I agree but not taking drugs. You also said that you provided a list below of ten crazy things people do for charity, I saw no such thing. The only physical efforts to take a Drug for the average person are (supposing the Drug in the container is on the ground) 1: To pick it up 2: To open the container 4: To put it in your mouth (the drug) 5: To swallow it. And anyway those would be efforts so tiny, I do not call them efforts. Some of the drugs you can inhale, but the effort would be similar. If you were to climb the nearest mountain however, it would take weeks of preparation. Let us say that you just came up to the nearest mountain however (not really very logical) the effort alone would be 1: Get on the nearest rock 2: Climb from rock to rock with full determination that would be hard work to push your body up (with no tools) 3: Get sore wounded feet as climbing and it would take huge amounts of effort to deal with that. The result of death would be dying in two different ways. Those who climb mountains for charity all would wear protective suit.

2. My point is that alcohol is less dangerous than drugs so why ban it ? Your point is to prove that alcohol is much more dangerous than drugs but that is not true, Reasons:

* It is used for personal entertainment
* The reason all the Americans were annoyed about alcohol being taken away was because it was much less dangerous than Drugs
* It would take weeks (depending on how much you take) for alcohol to kill you whereas drugs would take hours or days to say how strong it is. And if drugs were made legal I fail to see how it would stop drug dealers from thriving. They would just sell much more dangerous drugs for the once the people have the smaller drugs (that I will come to) they want more. If the government were to allow drugs to be made they would have to make sure that the factories would make tiny quantities otherwise they would not doing their duty. Why I disagree is because if an accident happens in the factory it could result in some ones death. Besides what does it matter whether the government gives you drugs and you die or if some drug dealer gives it to you.

3. I never agreed to your point about putting whatever substances in our system. The point was that people do not just put substances into their system, they give money to drug dealers as well.

I look forward to hearing you in the next argument

Back to you pro
Stonewall

Pro

"You also said that you provided a list below of ten crazy things people do for charity, I saw no such thing."

At the very bottom of my round I left four links; that was one of them. Sorry if I was not clear. Like I said before-- some of these are far stranger than taking drugs (http://www.oddee.com...).

"The only physical efforts to take a Drug for the average person are..."

That might be true, but I never said the effort was more difficult. I said in the last round, "Effort made to do something should have absolutely nothing to do with how 'bad' something is for you." Which is true. Taking drugs is just as dangerous as climbing a mountain; one's just easier. But the danger level remains the same, albeit different.

"Those who climb mountains for charity all would wear protective suit."

And I could use just a little bit of heroin. These things are still comparable in that there are precautions, but the risk is still there.

"Your point is to prove that alcohol is much more dangerous than drugs but that is not true..."

I provided a link to a study that found that alcohol is more harmful. This isn't a matter of opinion; the research is there in black-and-white. I'll provide the link again so you can read it yourself (http://www.theguardian.com...). I will now address each of your reasons why it's "not dangerous".

"It is used for personal entertainment"

So is heroin and crack and marijuana. These are all forms of entertainment, and your reason has no ground.

"The reason all the Americans were annoyed about alcohol being taken away was because it was much less dangerous than Drugs"

I addressed this in the last round as well: People were mad because their drug of choice was taken away. The same way an addict would be mad if someone took his stash away. He's not mad because crack isn't dangerous; he's mad because his drug is gone. Alcohol is a drug, and it is dangerous.

"It would take weeks (depending on how much you take) for alcohol to kill you whereas drugs would take hours or days to say how strong it is."


Alcohol poisoning can kill you in a matter of hours. In England, 700 people a week are treated for it. 350+ people a year die from it. (http://www.drinkaware.co.uk...)

"And if drugs were made legal I fail to see how it would stop drug dealers from thriving."

The same exact way crime rates, homicides, prison populations, and bootleggers went down after Prohibition, that's how.

"If the government were to allow drugs to be made they would have to make sure that the factories would make tiny quantities otherwise they would not doing their duty. Why I disagree is because if an accident happens in the factory it could result in some ones death."

I had to reread this several times. That doesn't make sense. Are you implying the workers would be stealing and using the drugs during work? That's idiotic, frankly speaking. Those who produce alcohol don't get drunk on the job. Those who produce condoms don't have sex on the job. Those who work at McDonald's don't eat Big Macs on the job. Why would these factories be different?

"Besides what does it matter whether the government gives you drugs and you die or if some drug dealer gives it to you."

It's a major difference, actually. In the same way bootlegged alcohol (or moonshine) is incredibly dangerous for you, street drugs are similarly harmful. When the government gets involved, they can put limits on a drug's effects, tax the hell out of it, and make sure no-one has too much in their system. With all these newfound regulations, drug use becomes safer and more beneficial to society.

"I never agreed to your point about putting whatever substances in our system."

Yes you did, though! I quote: "But you are right saying that we can do whatever we want putting in substances in our bodies..." Right there. You followed this with a quote about how you take issue with giving money to drug dealers. This is remedied by making it legal. Boom! No more drug dealers. It would be more comparable to giving your money to the cashier when you buy beer. Do you consider him to be a shady alcohol dealer? No; he's just a cashier. Those who would dispense drugs would follow suit.

Hopefully I made the links more visible this time. If you take issue with anything in the previous round, the links are there too.
Debate Round No. 4
sherlock.holmes221B

Con

I am truly sorry opponent and voters, although I would love to answer fully, I have got too much going on at the moment in my personal life. I would love to continue at the right time on this round but in another debate (with only three more rounds). I am sorry.

1. You did not make it sound like the result besides (in the other part two of this debate) I will explain the logic of that.
2. People do not take drugs for their entertainment
4. "But you are right in saying that we can do whatever we want putting substances in our bodies" meaning we have the ability to do it physically but we should not be allowed to take such things.

It of course is optional if you want to answer part two but please feel free to do so :).
Stonewall

Pro

I hope that my opponent's life gets sorted out soon and for the better. Whenever he would like to continue this debate, I'm up for it.

1. You did not make it sound like the result besides (in the other part two of this debate) I will explain the logic of that.

I think you mean that we'll continue this debate in the to-be-announced part two of this debate.

2. People do not take drugs for their entertainment

That's simply not true. I know people who do drugs for entertainment. Personally. There is no simpler way of saying that that's not true.

4. "But you are right in saying that we can do whatever we want putting substances in our bodies" meaning we have the ability to do it physically but we should not be allowed to take such things.

I'm sorry I misunderstood; I figured it went without saying that we do, in fact, have the capabilities to use drugs. That seemed superfluous. However, in this case, I really fail to see what saying this had to do with furthering your point.

___

Whenever my opponent wants to begin part two of this debate, I'll be ready. For now, voters, vote on who made the better argument.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Owl099 3 years ago
Owl099
The idea that everyone should have the right to put whatever they want inside their bodies is ridiculous because if everyone started putting whatever they liked within their bodies then it could result in the whole world dying and that is going bad rather than good and if we die then this world is pointless for a great while, until something might happen someway but that is not proved. So if this theory works then we all have a right to just die (without at all any help and no great pain).
Posted by plussizewomens 3 years ago
plussizewomens
plussizewomens has been manufacturing plus size womens clothing since 1990.

http://plussizewomens.com.au...
Posted by Stonewall 3 years ago
Stonewall
Because we should have the right to put whatever we want in our bodies. Either everything or nothing should be legal, and the latter would *definitely* not work.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
i find this debate a waste of time, because drugs are bad to your health even whisky and alcohol, why would you want it legal ?
Posted by MartinMSC2014 3 years ago
MartinMSC2014
I agree with saad they're not all terrible for people just ask an expert
Posted by saadmsc2014 3 years ago
saadmsc2014
I agree that some people have reasons to believe that drugs should be illegal. Drugs can cause people to become dangerous to themselves and others. However, some people refer to drugs as "good." How can something that is called "good" be bad. Some people also call them "goooood." Again, if users put so much emphasis on the fact that drugs are good and not bad, they should be taken seriously because they have a first hand experience.
Posted by Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat 3 years ago
Nerd_in_a_Trenchcoat
Am I the only one that thinks it's funny that this was brought up by sherlock.holmes221B, when the original Sherlock was a cocaine addict?
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
u JUST WANT DRUGS CUZ U TAKE THEM AND THEY TASTE GOOD TO U
Posted by sherlock.holmes221B 3 years ago
sherlock.holmes221B
I am sorry. Drugs Must Be Made legal part two (if Stonewall agrees) will be debated soon.
Posted by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
Why would u want drugs drugs do crazy things to people some guy named eugine got his face eaten off because some guy got drunk from taking achohal drugs
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Darris 3 years ago
Darris
sherlock.holmes221BStonewallTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con clearly didn't read the sources. Spelling and grammar: Con didn't even proofread a little bit (1, 2 ,4). Argumentation: Pro pursued the logic of Con's position, but Con sort of just hopped around it and disagreed despite verifiable fact. Sources: Con used no sources. 100% to Pro.
Vote Placed by CPUSA99 3 years ago
CPUSA99
sherlock.holmes221BStonewallTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: i agree with con but pro conducted way better
Vote Placed by MrVan 3 years ago
MrVan
sherlock.holmes221BStonewallTied
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: Con's arguments were weaker, and he provided no sourced to back up his case.