The Instigator
pbeisner0709
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiamC
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Drugs

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...
NiamC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,505 times Debate No: 59181
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

pbeisner0709

Pro

All drugs should be legal.
NiamC

Con

I accept!

Definitions:

Drug- "a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."
: "an illegal and often harmful substance (such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, or marijuana) that people take for pleasure."
:
" something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness"

Harmful- "causing or likely to cause harm."
Harm-" physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted."


All- "used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing."

Should-"
indicating a desirable or expected state."

Legal- "permitted by law."

Definition sources:
https://www.google.co.uk...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk...
https://www.google.co.uk...


s://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />
https://californiaac.files.wordpress.com...

Debate Round No. 1
pbeisner0709

Pro

If all drugs were legal, addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They would get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their habits

Understandably, many Americans fear that with no drug laws, we would have hundreds of thousands of addicts, crack babies, children trying drugs, and other evils. But that"s what we have now.

The prohibition of drugs is the worst solution for preventing abuse. Firstly, it brings about a black market that is corrupt and costs human lives. Secondly, it constrains people who wouldn't abuse drugs. Thirdly, prohibiting drugs is expensive.

If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs.

Prohibition leads to violence. By making a black market inevitable, you generate violence because the conflicts between the parties involved in the drug trade can't be solved by legal means within the judicial system. They are forced into a twilight world in which they have to shoot each other instead of hiring lawyers and taking the matter to court.

There are studies that show the level of violence is reduced when the state leaves the drug trade alone, the reason being that the drug dealers have fewer disputes. The latest evidence from Mexico confirms that. Of course there has been drug-related violence there for a long time. But the violence didn't escalate and increase sharply in scale until the president, Felipe Calder"n, declared the big war on drugs in 2006. We have calculated that the murder rate in the US could fall by around 25 percent if drugs were legal.
If all drugs were legal, addicts would no longer pay black-market prices to criminals for drugs of questionable and dangerous origin. They would get drugs produced by legitimate pharmaceutical companies and pay market prices. They would no longer die from buying toxic drugs, and they would no longer have to mug innocent people to support their habits.

If all drugs were legal, addicts could seek help by going to doctors no longer afraid of being prosecuted for their medical problems.

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer be on our streets. They couldn"t compete with the low, free-market prices for drugs sold at pharmacies.

If all drugs were legal, criminal drug dealers would no longer prey upon our children " any more than distilleries and breweries try to infiltrate schools to hook kids on alcohol.

Consumption of the more harmless drugs would probably increase. And there would be a larger number of people who occasionally take a drug. But when single malt whiskey became legal again after the prohibition of alcohol in the US ended, the whole country didn't become addicted to single malt.
If all drugs were legal, our prisons would be emptied of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people who have never done harm to anyone else. No longer would over-crowded prisons cause truly violent criminals to be free on early release and plea bargains to terrorize the rest of us.

If all drugs were legal, law-enforcement resources would be available to fight violent crime, instead of being used to chase people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us.

If all drugs were legal, much of the street violence would end " as it did when Alcohol Prohibition ended " because gangs of thugs would no longer be fighting over drug territories.

If all drugs were legal, police corruption would diminish, because criminals could no longer use black-market drug money to gain immunity by subverting weak policemen.

If all drugs were legal, the government could no longer use the Drug War as an excuse to tear up the Bill of Rights and pry into your bank account, strip-search you at an airport, tear your car apart, monitor your e-mail, or seize your property without even charging you with a crime.
Why do I think America would be like this if all drugs were legal?

Because that"s the way it was before the drug laws were passed. Yes, there were people whose lives were destroyed by drugs then " just as some people today destroy their lives with drugs, alcohol, financial mistakes, or various character weaknesses " but far fewer people lost their lives to drugs when they were legal.

And America"s streets were peaceful.

Has America changed since then? Of course it has. But cause-and-effect relationships don"t change. Force still begets force. Government programs still lead to unintended and destructive consequences.

Re-legalizing drugs would put a stop to those destructive consequences " end the criminal black market, end the violence, end the incentive to hook children, and end the production of toxic drugs that kill people.

We have to quit being afraid of the unknown, and instead recognize what we do know " that the Drug War is doing enormous harm to society.

If we care about our children, if we care about our cities, if we care about our country, we have to end the insane War on Drugs.
NiamC

Con

Ok, I would like to say something first.

I was surprised by my opponent’s quick argument response; I was surprised by the vast quantity of my opponent’s argument. This is when I started to hastily find some points to refute etc.

After the many minutes and hours of preparing my argument, I got suspicious and very doubt-like, so I decided to go over my opponent’s legitimacy. And guess what?....

MY OPPONENT HAS PLAGIARISED!

My opponent’s argument was completely plagiarised, word for word, verbatim! He hadn’t written any of his “argument”.

This is probably why my opponent’s response was so quick...

My Claim against my opponent:

I have proof that my opponent had plagiarised:

When tracing the sources of my opponents arguments, I found the following websites:

http://www.spiegel.de...

http://www.rense.com...

http://www.wnd.com...

http://cannabisnews.com...

http://www.uk420.com...

There are other ones as well, but they all have the same text...

My opponent has provided no real or legit arguments and has breached a very serious violation of conduct. I usually give people a second chance in an instance like this, but since you are the instigator, you don’t deserve a second chance.

I withhold the right to post my argument in the next round due to what has happened. I wonder how my opponent will respond.

I urge the voters to penalise my opponent for his actions and I urge the floor to side with me.

I will present my argument in the next round

Debate Round No. 2
pbeisner0709

Pro

pbeisner0709 forfeited this round.
NiamC

Con

Ok, I am against Drugs being legalised; therefore, I shall be arguing that drugs should be illegal.

Attn: Voters.
As to reiterate what I had said before, please take in mind that my opponent had plagiarised. He admitted this but has not apologised; instead, he shows the opposite of remorse.
* This comment can be found at the following: http://www.debate.org...
"Look I'm sorry. Now be a good Christian and forgive me."

I mustn't dwell on this for too long, so I shall begin my arguments.

Lets go!
Image

1. The prohibition of drugs in some countries have shown to be effective.
Recent goverment surveyed statistics from individual countries have released reports with substantial evidence that the prohibition of drugs such as cannabis/marijauna etc in countries of any economic state have shown to have a stabilisation or decrease of drug use in that area. Here is a report map showing so.

This shows which countries in the world have drugs such as marijuana prohibted or not.

This map shows the countries which have an increase or decrease in drug use.

When we refer to both images above, we can see a correlation in which the countries which have certain drugs prohibited, have caused the use of drugs to decrease in the areas. Unfortunately, we can see that the countries that don't have prohibitions of drugs, have resulted in an increase of drug use. Therefore, inorder to ensure that the overall drug use in the world decreases or stabilises, we have to enforce prohibitions. I rest part of my case.

2. Drug laws can deter the use of illicit substances
A recent Austrailian department of Health report shows that over a quarter of teenagers who were asked "why they wouldn't try drugs"; these 29% said that they wouldn't try illicit drugs due to the fact that there was a prohitiion on the use.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Due to the embargo on drug sales and importation, this has caused the prices of drugs such as cocaine, heroin and canabis to increase by 50%; this itself has shown to be a large factor of deterrance in the use of drugs and furthermore has caused the number of sales to greatly decrease.

3. Drugs are harmful.
It is a truism that all currently existing drugs have been shown to be harmful on a large scale; there is a plethora of reports/ evidence showing that drugs are harmful and have caused the inducing of death on many instances.

As you can see, more deaths caused by drugs had happened to males. It is also evident to see the peak years where there were increases and decreases in drug use. In the period of the 90's to the 00s, we can see that there was an increase in drug-related deaths; this was due to fact that more drugs were being created and sold and that drug prohibtion was less enforced then. From 09 and onwards, there has been a strong decrease in drug-related deaths due to the fact that there was a successful referendum for drug prohibitation. This is a substantial reason for why drugs should be illegal.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
While it was bad for Pro to plagarize, it is worse for Niam to end the debate here and then.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
urge the floor to slide...that's something usually CJKAllstar does. XD
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
pbeisner0709NiamCTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
pbeisner0709NiamCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF AND plagiarism
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
pbeisner0709NiamCTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF + plagiarism = definite win for Con.