Drugs should be legal
Debate Rounds (2)
The huge majority of drugs only affect the person doing them. To make a short list of examples, weed, cocaine, adderall, ecstasy, salvia, other hallucinogens, etc. The reason why they should be legal is because the government should not be able to tell the individual what decisions to make when it comes to the person's body and well-being. The government cannot make better decisions than the individual.
Cigarettes and alcohol are harmful, why are they legal then? If you grant the government the power to make decisions for you, where do you draw the line? Why don't they make tobacco and alcohol illegal? How about putting a restriction on the amount of sugar a product can have to solve obesity? How about banning ALL added sugar in every product? The people know that added sugar, tobacco, caffeine, alcohol and many other things are harmful but they still do them. It's their choice of life. I would much rather live 65 years happy than 90 years that could have been better (especially since the earlier years seem to be the best).
Another reason why drugs like these should be legal is because it just doesn't make sense to put in prison someone who is doing drugs (non-violent "crime"). One of the government's main job is to protect its citizens. Now think about a college student doing drugs in his dorm and gets caught and put into jail. The government is basically saying "you're not hurting anyone, but you're hurting yourself, so we're going to protect you from yourself by throwing you in jail for the rest of your life. You'll be safe there because we won't let you do anything." How does that make any sense? Are you going to tell me that people that do drugs are automatically dangerous and should be put in jail before they commit an actual crime? Last time I checked, in the United States of America we're INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. So don't even try saying "drugged people are dangerous" because you would be crapping all over the US justice system by incarcerating a person because you deem them "dangerous" even though they haven't committed a crime.
Also, a significant portion of the prison population are people who were found guilty for nonviolent drug offenses. Not only does the State have to spend a tremendous amount of money in keeping the prisoners alive (food, safety, healthcare, etc.) but also most of those nonviolent people are probably nice and got ripped away from their families. If a guy is the main bread winner for a given family and you put him in jail for doing cocaine for 10 years, you basically just destroyed an entire family. Now the mom has to work and raise the kids by herself and maybe even find a new husband. If you lock up a senior in college, you just wasted his entire life. What is he going to do when he's 35 and gets out? Go back to college? Yeah, right.
In addition to the previous points, legalizing drugs would make the streets safer. Why? Because gangs would completely disappear. Maybe where you live there are not that many gangs but in some places near the border with Mexico, gang members literally kill each other to have control over territory to sell the illegal drugs. That's how they make their income. If you legalize drugs, companies and maybe even the government could make them safer and cheaper. The gangs would have no market/territory to fight over because people would buy the cheaper, safer drugs from companies and the government. As an added bonus, our drug policy would also affect Central and South America because we are a huge part of their illegal drug traffic market, so gangs would see a decline in those areas as well.
Needless to say, if drugs are legalized, new industries would be created, in other words, more jobs. Look at the weed industry in Colorado for reference.
Another thing is that the government would save SO MUCH money. We would save money by not spending it in the enforcement of the "war on drugs." Plus, the government could tax the drugs to make more money. So we spend less and revenue more, it doesn't get much better than that! You know what could all that extra money could be used for? The military industrial complex. Just kidding! We could use it for education. And part of that extra education money could be used for rehabs and to educate people to do drugs responsibly, just like alcohol. That way, the people DECIDE not to do drugs as opposed to not having the freedom to decide.
Lastly, it has been shown in various countries (look up European countries as examples) that after they decriminalized a drug or made it completely legal, the rate of that drug being used went down over the years. One of the reasons why people get into drugs is exactly because they're illegal. They do it for the thrill of doing something forbidden. Why would those people try cocaine if it was legal and they knew it was harmful? I know it's counter intuitive but don't take my word for it, look it up. Portugal is a pretty good example of this.
Summary of point:
1) The government shouldn't tell me how to live my life unless I'm affecting other people.
2) Incarcerating non-violent drug users not only breaks up the most fundamental unit of society (families) but is in no way efficient nor a deserved punishment.
3) The government would save money in keeping prison inmates.
4) The government would save money from law enforcement.
5) The government would get more money by taxing drugs which are consumed whether they are legal or not.
6) Gangs would be greatly affected, if not completely go away.
7) People who decided to do drugs responsibly would get safer drugs from FDA approved companies.
8) More jobs would be created.
9) I would get high and I would be happy.
Drugs of harder caliber drawl people powerless and incapacitate them. The danger can not be underestimated and the feds should pursue such potent drugs out of american life.
Drugs with a peaceful recreational use should be regulated by state and its municipalities.
Responsible Use, and Responses to Abuses --should be the focus on lesser mind-altering substances
Beer and Wine should be left as is over-the-counter. Tobacco products could be re-regulated(cleaned up) with its consumers well-being coming first.
Hard liquor should be tagged with an extra tax, giving way to..
Marijuana Reform..which is so CRUCIAL that one can only wonder why/how it has not already been undertaken in its sensible manner. I have a layout for its reformation..for another argument.
Legalizing Drugs could only endanger every human being
If you're talking about drugs that are so potent that you literally have no control over yourself, that's not what this debate is about. I specifically pointed out twice in my introduction and first sentence of first body paragraph that those drugs were not part of the discussion.
However, if you are referring to the other drugs then you're just wrong. I know people that have done coke, meth and many of the harder drugs (I will not state on the internet if I have or I have not tried them) and they're perfectly fine, in fact, many are way more responsible than the average adult. Drugs like cocaine just give you a huge energy rush and you feel euphoric, you don't suddenly become more aggressive. That's your imagination at work. In other words, drugs don't change your personality. They won't make you do things that you normally wouldn't do. All they do is they make you feel different and some people like that once in a while.
I'm sure is not hard for you to understand why someone would drink alcohol once in a while even though it's harmful. It feels good. Same reason for every other drug, they're harmful but they make you feel good/different. Some people try them just once for curiosity. Other people do them in a controlled way. You will always have the people that can't control themselves and get addicted but you should not take away the rights of the responsible people. Apply that logic to gun control, I don't own a gun and I don't think they're too interesting, but I would never vote to take away the right of 300+ million people just so one maniac out of 1 million gun owners goes and does something crazy. That's just silly. Otherwise every accident in history would result in the event of Congress passing a law that limits whatever right was abused until all rights are restricted or gone.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want freedom, some accident will inevitably happen, but in exchange you get, well, freedom.
redchipmonk forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro- Forfeiture, Arguments to Pro- Way more detailed and well-constructed than Con's. Spelling and Grammar to Pro- Saw some minor grammar errors for Con. Sources to Pro- He had at least one source.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.