The Instigator
Nixon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MisterDeku
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Heroin (and other opioids) should be dispensed legally

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
MisterDeku
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 35489
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Nixon

Pro

Current policy combating drug use and drug addiction has had catastrophic results. Crime is rampant, stemming from both the organized groups currently controlling the supply of drugs as well as the addicts who seek alternative sources of revenue to feed their habits. Death and disease are rampant as users must cope with a wide range of issues stemming from the black market, including drugs cut with dangerous substances, lack of dosage consistency, lack of proper sanitation, and dangerous misinformation spread by both the government as well as users.

The answer is to dispense opioid drugs within a legal framework directly to users safely and for a low price. This would solve most of the issues caused by the black market. Drugs would be pure and consistent, greatly reducing the chance of overdose or dangerous contamination. Users can be encouraged to use clean equipment for injection and provided with fresh gear for each use, reducing infection as well as the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. With a cheap supply of their drug of choice, addicts are far less likely to commit crimes for their drugs as opioid consumption reaches a plateau once a certain threshold is reached, allowing addicts to stabilize and maintain at a set dosage. It is likely that even the spread of opioid use and addiction would be reduced, as a large portion of new users come about as a result of having the drug "pushed" onto them by a friend or acquaintance who is selling to feed their own habit. With drug dealing impossible to profit off combined with the fact that addicts would no longer need exorbitant amounts of money to keep a heavy habit in check, pushers would practically disappear, limiting the exposure to the uninitiated.

With a system that encourages stability and health rather than abstinence, users are no longer marginalized or dehumanized. Opioids use does not cause significant long term health effects and a habit can be maintained for decades without much consequence. Rather than pushing users to quit, we should be pushing them to integrate with society, find suitable jobs, stay healthy, and avoid crime. A large percentage of addicts who quit do so not as a result of rehab or direct intervention, but rather as a result of "spontaneous remission". The longer an addict is addicted, the better chance per year they have of experiencing "spontaneous remission" and quitting of their own accord. An addict cannot experience spontaneous remission if they are dead. Current policies result in very high mortality rates for addicts. By reducing mortality rates with humane policies, addicts can be kept alive and healthy for far longer, greatly increasing their chance of remission and living a sober life.

Feel free to contest any of my points or raise your own.
MisterDeku

Con

Thanks to Pro for creating this debate!

Pro's argument is that we should actively distribute these illegal substances instead of simply making them legal. He argues that we shouldn't even try to get addicts to quit taking these illicit substances, but let them keep doing it since they will eventually enter 'spontaneous remission' anyway.

Knowing this, my grounds for opposition will be to argue that we shouldn't encourage others to use these illicit substances, but that we shouldn't prosecute them for using them either. Instead the solution is to simply make usage of these substances legal and allow the market and society to solve the problem itself.

Before I get into my arguments any further, I should note that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence for anything he has state thus far. Evidence is not always necessary for a debate, especially when there are premises that both sides openly agree on. However when the likes of 'Spontaneous Remission' are made, legitimate evidence is necessary to show that said claims are true.

I challenge Pro to provide evidence for the arguments he has already made in this debate in his next round. To make this claim fair, I will not source my arguments until he does so.

With that out of the way, my argument is that we should in no way encourage use of such dangerous substances, but we shouldn't prohibit either. The natural precedent to look at for such an issue is prohibition. After making this substance illegal the nation entered a period of immorality and high crime rates. It should be interesting to note that substances such as heroin and other opiates were once legal as well, but when they were outlawed the reaction was not as severe, but we'll get to the impacts of that in just a moment. The attempt to regulate morality here backfired and prohibition was eventually repealed.

Since then public concern and social movements have done a much better job at lowering usage of alcohol than policing morality ever have. If we were to allow heroin and other opiates to follow this precedent, then we would also leave such social programs in place to take care of this problem. Making it legal would take the danger out of heroin usage, but still provide an outlet to treat addiction as an issue of public health.
Debate Round No. 1
Nixon

Pro

Nixon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Nixon

Pro

Nixon forfeited this round.
MisterDeku

Con

Can I get dat vote?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
MisterDeku, while your opponent did forfeit 2/3 rounds, you seem to have conceded the resolution in your R1 when you agreed that they should be legal; while Pro provided a framework of legalization whose details you contested, the resolution was "Heroin and other opioids should be dispensed legally", and you agreed that they should be legal.
Posted by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
It seems like a good opening argument,however, you have no sources to back up the resolution. The Burden of Proof is on Pro, and you should use sources to uphold the resolution.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
I commend you for laying down this challenge, and I am very impressed by your opening argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
NixonMisterDekuTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
NixonMisterDekuTied
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