Drugs should not be legalized, and drug dealers should be punished greatly to save lives.
Debate Rounds (3)
For 2014, The State Patrol reported that troopers issued 5,546 citations for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Of those, 674 " about 12.2 percent " involved suspected marijuana use, either alone or in combination with otherintoxicants. For 354 of those citations " about 6.4 percent of the total, or one in every 16 " marijuana was believed to be
"the only substance.
Let's see what pot does to the kids
"One of the reports key findings was that the number of children aged zero to five exposed to marijuana increased 268 percent when comparing the period from 2006 to 2009 to the period from 2010 to 2013: triple the national average.
The report showed that more young people aged 12 to 17 were using marijuana as well. When asked during a national survey in 2012 whether they had used marijuana in the past month, 10.47 percent of Colorado"s youth said they had, which was 39 percent higher than the national average.
"I never dreamed in a million years that this would happen to my son," Kendal, a parent who didn"t want to use his last name, told CBS, referring to a time when he came home to find his 13-year-old son unconscious from what he says was a marijuana overdose.
"He was gray. His heart wasn"t beating and he wasn"t breathing," Kendal said.
^ nobody wants that to happen to the kids.
And we haven't even started on the hard drugs like heroine.
Heroine deaths have rose about 6k since Obama has tacken office. This may be a result of Obama letting drug dealers out of jail, such as ge did earlier this week. Or Obama making drug dealing (which kills people) a non violent crime. This is stupid since drug dealing kills people, yet is nonviolent. Punching someone in the mouth doesn't kill anyone, yet is a violent crime.
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 669,000 Americans used heroin in 2012 with 18- to 25-year-olds having the highest number of use. Since 2006, heroin-related overdose deaths have risen by 45 percent.
It kills people, but many people want to legalize it.
If we legalize drugs, then more people will die, as more people will take it, and more people will take more of it.
I assume that the first round is for opening statements, the second for further elaboration, and the third for closing remarks.
The only point I have to put forward at this time is this quote by Henry Patrick.
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
Thank you for this debate. Good luck
Your argument seems to be that if one wants to kill themselves with drugs they should. This is flawed. If a kid doesn't know that drugs are harmful, and only does it to be cool or try it once, he may develop an adiction that ruins his life or ends it. Also of drugs are legalized those who are alcholic or adicted will do drugs or die.
Hard drugs like heroine do NO good, and are simply poison. Why do you want to legalize poison when there are peopke who don't know what they are tacking and what it will do?
(Little side not. My quote does still accurately describe my position. Just because people die using their own free will doesn't mean you can take it away from me. I'm a law abiding citizen. Why should my rights and freedoms be taken away?
The answer, is because you don't like the choices that the drug users make, and in some instances, the choices I make. That sums it up fairly well. You don't believe that drugs are good for you. I don't either. But your repulsion to it leads you down the path of more government and more control. Let me ask you, what will happen once your views are placed on the chopping block? Or when your religion is attacked as evil? Or your race is reviled as the pure incarnation of evil. Will you look to those who fight for freedom to protect you? Just remember that whatever door you open for the government, it is a thousand times harder to close. What will happen when your viewpoints are the evil in the world? You may say that will never happen, but if you look back at history, you will. You stand for freedom for all who share my views on drugs. I stand for Liberty for all.)
You know, I was going to put more after the "little" side note, but I think I'll leave it. I now leave it to you to say why you can control people's lives, but they can't control yours. Or otherwise, why society is in charge of me, and not me in charge of society.
And, in the form of a rebuttal, two points. First, education is the greatest good. Everyone should know everything. Nothing should be off limits and nothing should be limited. So, teach children about drugs. Show them how idiotic it is to destroy their bodies with it. And second, who said I wanted children to have access to drugs? I know I gave you very little to work with, but try and fight my comments on Liberty without putting legalization for children in my mouth.
If a guy takes hard drugs and gets high, he hurts other people, possibly with murder, maybe just in a car crash.
I'll not respond to your argument that my views will be looked as evil, because everyone has at least 1 view that certain people see as evil. Even the most PC people have some of their views attacked.
I don't want to control people's lives, I want to not make poison available, and punish people who sell this poison to kids and other people. Legalizing drugs will actually alow the goverment to control more as most liberal plans are. The goverment will be controlling all legal poison, and the people that take it. Drugs control a person, the drug dealer controls the drugs. Don't make the goverment the controller of the people. If you want less goverment control, as I do, vote for illegal drugs. On a side note illegal drugs kills less people.
Children are taught about drugs now. If it becomes legal the justification will be "it's legal, so it can't be that bad" and that's a smart thing to do, until they are found dead. The law should protect the people, not harm them.
Drugs are legal now, should not drug dealers who kill many people with drugs be punished greatly? Or should they be set free?
The constitution says, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", not "government approved life, liberty from freedom, and the pursuit of society approved forms of happiness". You seem to forget that people do drugs because they like the high, or in other words, they use drugs to pursue a form happiness. And as far as the general welfare is concerned, the best thing for society at large is to make 49% a slave to the 51%. But it is for the general welfare, no?
Where did I say crimes would go unpunished? Did anyone, anywhere, ever hear me say that!? Have you ever heard of a DUI?! I'm calling for legalized drugs, not legalized crime. If crime bumps up, three things will happen. One, crime will go down. Non-violent drug users are currently thrown in jail. The numbers will go down from that. Two, dangerous people will always do dangerous things. Drugs won't help them remain in control of themselves, but what do you think alcohol does? Three, have you ever heard of this thing called the drug war? Yeah, over. Cartels will lose much of their power, and only legal drugs will be necessary. Crime will go down.
You won't respond to my answer because you don't know what you would do. Are you also calling for the banning of alcohol? Should we get rid of video games next? Why don't we just go ahead and turn our media over to the government so that we don't have to see scary news. I mean, news makes you angry. Actually, speaking of anger, why don't we just get rid of it as well. I mean, do you know how many people are angry, and how much violence angry people commit? I know everyone is capable of anger, but that will change once we make it illegal.
You only want to control people's happiness. That's much more preferable than letting them live their own lives. Yes, please tell people what they can like doing, because everyone should be just like you. That isn't totalitarian at all. Sure people may do harmful things, but, everyone should trust your judgement. Oh wait, that's stupid. I forgot that the government is inept, that you don't run my life, and that I have this magical thing called freedom. Here things actually get kind of funny. First, it's libertarian, not liberal. Second, you do realize that opening the drugs to the free market will take power away from the government, right? Right? If drugs are open to the market, producers will control drugs, not the government. And it's not even just one producer that will control the drug either. It's all of the producers sharing it evenly.
Now, I've run out of space. Here is my summary. Bringing in government to protect people from their own choices is stupid. If we did it every time something bad came out, we would be called communists. Drugs harm only the user. The user may harm others, but they can and should be punished.
You want to protect people from themselves, because you "know" better than them.
I want to let people have pleasure or pain according to their desires. As long as they don't end up hurting others, I'm alright. Once they do harm another person, then please do intervene.
Now, I realize that drugs do harm. The source that you gave is right as far as I'm concerned. People die from using drugs. But they choose to do it. I allow people to make that choice. You don't. I let people live their own lives. You don't.
I have too much more to talk about. I should have given you more earlier. I'm sorry. So I'm challenging you to a new debate, specifically about marijuana. I hope that it will be clearer than this one. Message me if you accept
P.S. Drugs have been illegal for a while now. Please tell me how it has been better than what is happening now in Colorado? The drug war alone has cost about 51 billion dollars, and Mexico has lost 70,000 lives due to it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SkyLeach 10 months 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:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cited article who's *source data* was an ADVOCACY GROUP (. Propaganda article, no credit. (QT source for study-for-source-for article: 'by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area' ) Con didn't notice or make use of this, however, so no points. Arguments on both sides riddled with speculation, cognitive bias and hyperbole. Very little discussed was factual and both sides used numerous formal and informal logical fallacies to make their arguments. I didn't fid either argument convincing. Both debaters behaved mostly well, although without giving points I must say that statements like 'You are spewing lies now.' should be avoided. Point out facts with evidence, not accusations. In all I don't think anyone earned any points.
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.