The Instigator
mycull
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

End Prohibition, Drugs Become Public Health Issue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,214 times Debate No: 9331
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (11)

 

mycull

Pro

This debate will argue the current standards in the United States and Canada.

I believe drug abuse should be a public health issue, which means users and abusers do not face criminal penalties, but are offered treatment for their addiction in an open ended, government funded center.

This would remove much of the racial stereotype seen with arrests for possession of illegal drugs. This would save billions of dollars in police processing fees, court fees, incarceration fees, and potential recidivism costs. Money would also be saved with the end of prohibition world wide, including all border regions, bribe costs to maintain prohibition, less violence and therefor less collateral damage to pay for, ect.

These savings would go towards prevention methods, which would be intelligent and factual pieces of information spanning across all forms of media and entertainment in order to educate ages child to adult.

By removing prohibition, the existence of the black market would dwindle considerably as see with the end of alcohol prohibition, and the move into a legal and regulated market.

=======

I'll end this now to keep it open ended for con, however I must insist the con argues for the current system in place, not his own ideology.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, the issue of drug abuse is controversial, complicated but more importantly a very interesting subject.

My opponent states that,
"I believe drug abuse should be a public health issue, which means users and abusers do not face criminal penalties,"

By inference my opponent refers to the use of illegal recreational drugs, as previously noted in Canada and the USA.

I object to this on the basis that drug abuse has been made a crime, because drug abuse threatens the health of the user, those around them and the wider society. Cannabis one of the more benign of the illegal recreational drugs has been shown to cause permanent damage to mental health, including paranoia, anxiety attacks and schizophrenia. In addition it can reduce reaction times, driving whilst under the influence of cannabis is therefore a threat to the wider society.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

If the health effects of drug abuse were limited solely to the user/abuser then that would be a point in favour of my opponents proposition. But it is clear that these conditions provide a threat to the liberties and quality of life of others. Thus drug abuse must remain a criminal matter.

That is before we address the terrible effects of Cocaine, LSD and Heroin etc.

There is also a direct correlation between drug abuse and crime, not merely due to the criminality of the drugs themselves (which obviously would be negated by my opponents proposal), but by addicts who are attempting to fund their habits.

Though it can be argued that legalisation would increase the availability and reduce the cost of such drugs, many drug abusers are currently unable or unwilling to hold down a job and so would still resort to crime. If anything the number of these criminal drug users would increase under my opponents suggestion.

By treating the catalyst of these crimes, and the crime itself as crimes the police are more able to deal with the overall rate of crime.

My opponent further argues that drug uses are not to be prosecuted
"but are offered treatment for their addiction in an open ended, government funded center."

My opponent clearly states that the treatment will be ‘offered', this implies that such treatment will be entirely voluntary. I observe that drug abuse is a threat to the health of the user, their friends, families and the wider society. Drug abuse also tends to be addictive.

As drug abuse is harmful to society and as drug abuse tends to be addictive then it must be noted that in the former case we would like the users to accept treatment, in the latter case it is questionable how many would.

We can not expect a typical Heroin addict to volunteer for drug rehabilitation/treatment, nor having done so to remain in a such a program purely through the strength of their own willpower. It is clear that such treatment deserves a certain amount of coercion and would only be effective through the use of coercion.

The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated.

It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment.
This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves?

My opponents argues that one of the benefits of his proposal will be that,
"This would remove much of the racial stereotype seen with arrests for possession of illegal drugs."

I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures.

"This would save billions of dollars in police processing fees, court fees, incarceration fees, and potential recidivism costs. Money would also be saved with the end of prohibition world wide, including all border regions, bribe costs to maintain prohibition, less violence and therefore less collateral damage to pay for, ect."

Though it can't be denied that there would not be certain ‘savings' in some areas, the issue is that the net cost to society will increase. My opponents proposal is to argue that Heroin use be considered a similar ‘condition' to alcoholism.

"These savings would go towards prevention methods, which would be intelligent and factual pieces of information spanning across all forms of media and entertainment in order to educate ages child to adult."

More effective prevention methods would however be more police and tougher sentences for drug abusers. Educating children on the nature of these dangerous drugs removes the stigma that ought to be associated with their use and encourages them to think of drug abuse as a manageable risk, such as going to bar or indulging in red meat.

Finally my opponent argues that,
"By removing prohibition, the existence of the black market would dwindle considerably as see with the end of alcohol prohibition, and the move into a legal and regulated market."

Though that is true, alcohol which is only dangerous through excessive consumption is not analogous to such drugs as say Heroin. Which can be instantly addictive or even fatal with the first use.

A better analogy would be between the ending of alcohol prohibition and the hypothetical legalisation of Russian Roulette.

Thus I propose that the current system is superior to my opponents proposal and thus my opponents proposal is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
mycull

Pro

Thank you for the good reply.

If you do not mind, because it is so large I will simply debate point by point.

======

My opponent used this link to in order to reference his source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study.

Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue.

This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. To further my point, this effects the quality of life of people nowhere near smoke in their lives, for they have to deal with a suffering health system due to the overabundance of avoidable death; tobacco smoking.

Next my opponent addressed the correlation of drug abuse and crime.

He is very correct, there is a correlation. However correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits, the obvious solution at the very least would be not to continue using a failed system of prohibition. Addicts will forever be addicts, and have always found a way to get what they desire, even in prison. The solution is not prohibition, because it creates violence on a much larger scale as profitability becomes reality for illegal drugs. I will not provide a link, but a reminder of the before and after effects of the prohibition on alcohol. After prohibition, the violence was lessened tremendously.

Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users.

This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act.

Next my opponent argues police forces fighting against the catalyst of drug abuse will be better to deal with the overall rate of crime.

My opponent again is absolutely correct, however I would like to add perspective. The reason police would have more resources to deal with drug abuse because of drugs being illegal, is because the United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis. Maintaining prohibition of all drugs is costly on every level of government as more resources go into combating something that cannot be defeated. Furthermore, this is not even including the amount of money that could be made from tax revenue in a legal and controlled market. Prohibition is a crushing cost to maintain, and only further adds to the debt of the United States and Canada, which ironically harms the liberties of all citizens.

Next my opponent speaks about the need for government mandated coercion in order to not only require abusers to attend treatment, but to keep them there for they are a harm to society, along with themselves.

Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefor should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment, for many polls indicate the usage rate of widely used illegal drugs such as cannabis are nearing 50%.

I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centers reflects this.

Next, "The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated."

They are not removed for society, for society is the one paying for them to be there. Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons. Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed.

Next, "It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment.
This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves?"

Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centers. You argued drug abusers are a threat to society. Now, whether or not drugs are legal does not change this for addicts are addicts, which is why your point needs to be clarified for me.

Next, "I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures."

I offer the exert "The U.S. "war on drugs" disproportionately targets urban minority neighborhoods. Two national reports released in early 2008 found that although whites commit more drug offenses, African Americans are arrested and imprisoned on drug charges at much higher rates. "
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org...

=====

Unfortunately, I will not continue to argue the rest of your points. If there is one other in particular you wish for me to address, do ask.

Thank you for your time, looking forward to your reply.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

Thank you for the reply, I would like to apologise for the time it has taken me to get back to you.

My opponent has criticised the link I posted on the basis that,
"This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study."

1: Though I accept it is not in itself a scientific article, it does reference a scientific study.
2: I do understand my opponents point with regards the doubling of mental health risk.
3: The article does not merely state that Cannabis ‘probably' causes mental health problems. But makes several specific and firm claims as to its health effects.
4: The article mentions cannabis 12 times, nearly once a paragraph, and fails to specifically mention any other drug. I do not see how the article can be considered at all vague.

However that said I shall provide a proper scientific study into the effects of Cannabis and mental health.
http://arno.uvt.nl...

I would to draw my opponents attention to, the conclusions on page 28. Though it does supply the caveat that the damage only clear in the case of cannabis abuse (as opposed to infrequent use) it does prove the link and it should also be remembered that this is possibly the most benign of the drugs that my opponents wishes to see legalised (or decriminalised).

My opponent replies that,
"Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue.

This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. "

Though this is insightful it is not logically relevant to the debate. Because something that is harmful is legal, it does not follow that all harmful illegal substances should be made legal.

My opponent argues with regards drugs and crimes that
"correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits,"

I counter this on the basis that if drug addict is unable to legally fund his addiction due to the debilitation and intoxication his drug causes, he will resort to crime.

"Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users.

This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act."

This is a misunderstanding,,
The illegality is a reference to the aforementioned attempts to illegally gain money for what would now be a legal drug. The numbers of such people would logically increase under my opponents suggestion.

My opponent argues that,
"The United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis."

I would like my opponent to provide a link for this figure, but I do not doubt the overall point that the ‘war on drugs' is very expensive and imperfect.

My counter-argument is as follows,
Given that cannabis use has been shown by many studies to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is the father of a teenager,

You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation.
Or you can raise your teenager in a society where it is sold openly and cheaply in the shops and he can smoke as much as he could ever desire without any limits on this personal whims. This would be the ramifications of my opponents choice.

Also let us remember that this is not simply about Cannabis, this is about all currently illegal drugs. Cocaine, heroin, examine. Can this substances logically be treated in the same context as say tobacco?

With regards my counter-argument/defence of mandatory treatment my opponent states that,
"Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefore should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment,"

1: The onus was on my opponent to define such terms, I have been good in not attempting a pedantic or semantic case as I generally do not approve of such tactics.
2: The current system employs mandatory drug treatment, at no point has anyone suggested or come close to achieving the incarceration for treatment of half of the population.

My continues with,
"I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centres reflects this."

But the issue is that legalisation and voluntary treatment would in no way increase the success rate of treatment, decrease the number of drug users/abusers, alter the negative consequences of the drugs themselves and nor ultimately lower the crime rate. My opponent argues that an imperfect system be replaced by one that would be even worse in every conceivable regard.

I defence of the current system I stated that,
-drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, (to my opponents alternative).

My opponent stated that following contentions,
1: "They are not removed for society,"

But that is the definition of a prison, its primary function.

2: "Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons."

True, but my opponent must demonstrate that this limited supply is worse for society than his proposed unrestricted access. Again my opponent appears to be suggesting replacing an imperfect system with one that would be even worse.

3: "Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed."

I made no such insinuation, treatment is currently required as part of sentencing. This implies that this part of the sentence is not for punishment but for rehabilitation.

My opponent requested that,
"Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centres."

To clarify my argument
Though this is true, my opponent essentially argues that society should go a step further, ignoring the use of these harmful substances, enduring the resultant massive crime wave and yet also spending more money (as the number of centres will need to be increased) so that drug addicts can check in when they feel like it, and receive medical care that other Americans have to actually work for (or go without). This is amoral.

With regards the racial disparity in drug enforcement my opponent offers this link,
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org...;

However the link only references the economic benefits of legalising the Cannabis trade. I refute it because it ignores the true cost in terms of health and crime and because it fails to address the issue of harder drugs.

My opponent has not addressed my criticisms of his proposed drug education, nor has defended his flawed analogy with regards the past alcohol prohibition to the modern 'heroin prohibition'.
Debate Round No. 2
mycull

Pro

I have 40 minutes.

In response to the new link posted, I argue if cannabis can be proven to be a lie in terms of being dangerous in order to maintain it's illegality, so can other drugs. As read here:
http://www.naturalnews.com...

You can read that marijuana actually protects people from long term mental problems such as Alzheimer's. This contradicts what we're supposed to be afraid of, and is just one example of this contradiction. We're also supposed to be afraid of getting cancer, however modern studies have suggested the complete opposite. THC actually attacks tumors and shrinks them, and not just by smoking. See here:
http://www.sfgate.com...

To sum up my point, if cannabis can be proven to be completely benign,and actually beneficial to ones health, so could other currently illegal drugs. For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them. However they're all illegal, and are not allowed to be studied even though many studies from outside the US and Canada suggest all these drugs could have medicinal value. Shrooms may help with depression, as read here. Note, this is a study done outside the US and Canada:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Next my opponent argues, "Though this is insightful it is not logically relevant to the debate. Because something that is harmful is legal, it does not follow that all harmful illegal substances should be made legal."

If these drugs are harmful, then they should be legalized and regulated. Why would you want cocaine to be illegal, when it can be purchased from a drug dealer who does not ask for ID and could sell to minors, who does not know of the potency of the drug, who does not know of the purity of the drug, who does not know of the cleanliness of the drug. I further argue it has been proven everywhere it is easier for underage students to obtain marijuana than alcohol. This is because their drug dealer does not ask for ID.

Drugs like Meth and cocaine are very dangerous, and because of this they absolutely should be legal so they can be regulated so people know exactly what they're buying and have to at the very least be of a certain age. This is currently not happening.

Next, "I counter this on the basis that if drug addict is unable to legally fund his addiction due to the debilitation and intoxication his drug causes, he will resort to crime."

This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug. I see many of them standing outside the liqueur store begging for money. If alcohol was illegal again, they would be drinking an uncertain concentration of moonshine, and how is this any better than we have now?

ext, "The illegality is a reference to the aforementioned attempts to illegally gain money for what would now be a legal drug. The numbers of such people would logically increase under my opponents suggestion."

The Netherlands which has cannabis legal, actually has a lower use rate per capita than the US who has it illegal.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org...

As you can see, the drug being legal did not encourage more use, it actually lowered the amount of users.

Next, "I would like my opponent to provide a link for this figure, but I do not doubt the overall point that the ‘war on drugs' is very expensive and imperfect." This is regarding the 40 billion dollars a year spent on maintaining cannabis prohibition alone.

You can see here, my statement was a much more conservative one, for many predict the cost of prohibition soars into the hundreds of billions when calculating all it's affects.:

http://www.canorml.org...

Next, "My counter-argument is as follows,
Given that cannabis use has been shown by many studies to increase the chances of developing schizophrenia let us imagine for a moment that my opponent is the father of a teenager,

You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation.
Or you can raise your teenager in a society where it is sold openly and cheaply in the shops and he can smoke as much as he could ever desire without any limits on this personal whims. This would be the ramifications of my opponents choice."

Firstly, I would like to point of tobacco can be purchased legally and would absolutely kill my so, or your son, or any human being. However, our children are now educated, and are intelligent enough to make the right choice to not purchase tobacco, as can be seen by lowered usage rates over the years due to campaigns. Secondly, the link between cannabis and schizophrenia is unproven. However, it is most in favor that it either does not cause, or may only cause it with people predisposed to it. Either way, neither of us can prove this point on either side because it is illegal and difficult to study.

Next, "Also let us remember that this is not simply about Cannabis, this is about all currently illegal drugs. Cocaine, heroin, examine. Can this substances logically be treated in the same context as say tobacco?"

A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates.

=====

I am out of time, what a shame. Unfortunately but not, I was in Cedar Point for a day, and working for other days. I wish I could have participated more thoroughly, though I do feel confident in my arguments.

Thank you for the great debate.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I think my opponent posted a good argument in 40 minutes!

Firstly my opponent challenges the negativity of cannabis, and it argues that it can have beneficial effects. Now the fact it is harmful is not in doubt, there have been innumerable studies that confirm this, everyone who knows a social group who habitually smokes cannabis is aware of one of more people who has suffered permanent or at least long lasting damage to their mental health. Now it is perfectly possible that in addition to this it may assist the body in other conditions, so surely a better system is to retain it as an illegal drug, which still allows for authorised facilities to study it.

"For instance, psychedelic mushrooms, mescalin, LSD, MDMA, none of these drugs will kill you, and you cannot overdose on them"

Hallucinogenic drugs are dangerous due to their halluncinatory properties, physical injury or psychological damage are both possible outcomes. LSD can cause flashbacks years later that could occur when the person is driving a car, flying a plane, or performing a triple heart bypass.
http://www.healthunit.org...

On regards drugs and crime.
"This is preposterous, you cannot make such a claim. If a drug addict cannot get his "fix" in a legal market, he wouldn't be able to get it in an illegal market anyways. Drugs being in a legal market would make purchasing it more safe, and more reliable. I argue that alcoholics who cannot afford alcohol do not all turn to crime like you suggest, since alcohol is a drug."

My opponent simply can not deny that addicts resort to crime to support their habit, this is a clear and obvious fact and is always raised in these debates.

"A drug that impairs your ability to think and move properly while being a toxin to your body, harming your brain and liver is currently on the market. A drug that causes the US and Canada billions in health care and kills millions is currently on the market. However if these drugs were illegal, they would kill even more people. We have room to make all drugs legal, and properly educate people on the effects of using them. Them being illegal absolutely does not lower usage rates."

We are going to going around in circles on certain issues so I want to cut to the chase as it were and address heroin, possibly the most severe of the drugs in question.

The legalisation of heroin would increase usage rates.
Through the natural competition of differing and dealers prices would come down, people would consider the use of heroin to be legitimate. It can be instantly addictive. A heroin addict is unable to hold down a job, it is not an addiction you can really manage, this in turns increase the crime rate.

How can there be a moral or legal case for the legalisation of heroin?

(For more information on heroin, http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Debate Round No. 3
mycull

Pro

I will give my opponent the last word.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent has not addressed several salient points I made in the former round, in conclusion though the health problems associated with cannabis are debatable, and though there would be certain social benefits as a result of legalisation (e.g. weakening of organised crime, gang violence) my opponent has failed to explain how society would overall benefit from easy access to hard substances such as heroin. This clearly is not a drug that could be licensed and regulated, even countries with liberal drug policies would not indulge this. Thus I strongly urge a Con vote.

I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
Legalize 'em, regulate them, tax the bleep out of 'em & put criminals out of business

a total win/win/win/win situation
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Marauder, what was wrong with my conduct? Was I somehow rude?
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Supporters of marijuana prohibition are supporters of terrorism, plain and simple. Illegal drugs are the best way for someone to raise funds illegitimately.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"even casual drug use is 'treason.'"

Their logic goes something like this:

When you buy drugs, you help fund terrorists and gang members. Who are hell bent on causing CHAOS. Therefore, the act of buying drugs is treasonous..

I flip this around and say this..

You are making a drug that has high demand for it ILLEGAL, making it artificially high in price, and a very good cash cow for terrorists and gang members. YOU'RE the ones commiting treason, by giving a monopoly to those who wish to do us harm..

Legalize drugs (or for the point of this discussion, MARIJUANA) and the treason argument, goes out the window.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
The only argument about marijuana that "holds" is that you cannot control it at ALL. Just because vending machines don't currently carry it doesn't mean it is hard to get. I can't get a lot of things in vending machines that are otherwise quite simple to procure.

Oh wait a minute, I am wrong. There IS a way to control citizen procurement of THC. Ask former Los Angeles Police Cheif Daryl Gates, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said that infrequent or casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" because "we're in a war" and even casual drug use is "treason." That is about the only way to control the drug, and unfortunately Mr. Gates is not alone - many people have a sort of religious defiance against the drug, and think that it is downright sinful to use it. Unfortunately the people who hold this ideology currently run the country, and don't have much problem with completely stripping a man down of his most basic human rights and locking him in a cell like an animal with rapists and killers because he likes to smoke weed. Personally, I would like to have the situation reversed for a few years or so and have people who believe in invisible men in the sky and heaven and hell put in jail and stripped of their most basic human rights, just to see what it's like. Maybe that will give us the perspective we need to achieve justice in this great nation of ours.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
Cigarettes aren't sold in vending machines (anymore) nor is alcohol

As drug dealers don't do this. It doesn't take THAT much effort to have enough contacts to make it as easily available as if they were sold in stores..

At least if it were in shops, we could take way their licenses and heavily punish them for selling to minors. IE. who would KNOW who the sellers are and hold them accountable.

Prohibition is giving up power
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Marijuana is not as easily avaliable as being able to purchase it in shops and from vending machines. Therefore the argument holds.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"You have two choices, you can raise your teenager in a society where he may never be offered cannabis, where he may find difficulty in purchasing it, where he may smoke it sporadically before deciding to grow. This is the current situation."

This sentence made me shake my head..

Marijuana IS easily available, and you would HAVE to have a sheltered life to not be offered marijuana by the time you are 19.

Also, it seems silly to me, to punish ADULTS for their vices, because you don't want your sweet darling to engage in the activity. When will we grow up and realize that there are different standards for adults then there are for children?
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
THC affects different people in different ways. There may be a minute portion of the population who experience a negative mental effect, but given the amount of $$ thrown at trying to slander the drug and the amount of time they have had to do it, it's pretty safe to say that THC is EVEN SAFER than nicotine and caffeine. These two drugs have hard evidence connecting them to circulatory and nervous system failure. Of course, no one wants to ban cigarettes and coffee because these two products are well-accepted by Christian Middle America. Until our Christian voters and politicians give up their cultural chokehold on hemp, it will be difficult to make much progress with drug laws.
Posted by LexJ 7 years ago
LexJ
I used to smoke quite the bit of marijuana, and still occasional use to this day. I have never noticed being one to have slower reflexes at all. Sober passengers say I drive better under the condition. I have noticed it has been far easier to concentrate on a single subject under the condition. The best thing about it all, anything that is bad (food, movies, etc) will be better for the most part. Other than the movie Napoleon Dynamite, that movie was absurd in the first place.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by beyondlight 6 years ago
beyondlight
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by mycull 7 years ago
mycull
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by cmarrier 7 years ago
cmarrier
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
mycullCerebral_NarcissistTied
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