The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is Drug Control Unconstitutional?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 84490
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Hello and welcome!!!!! We will be debating Drug control, so let us begin!


1. Opening statement

2. Argument

3. Rebuttal

4. Closing statement

I feel drug control is Constitutional. Living in Colorado, I have seen many children become addicted to Marijuana when underage. Drug control is fully legal, with many states suing Colorado for letting people under the influence of Marijuana cross to their states. Drug control is fully needed.


The purpose of the US federal government was defined in the US Constitution. As stated in the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Specifically, to my opponents position. If the US constitution does not specifially grant to the US Federal government the right to control substances such as marijuana, then that regulation is reserved to the state and not the Federal government. There are rights set aside for a reason, to protect from government infringement.

Drugs such as Maraijuana as pointed out by my opponent are dangerous, and arguably addictive. However, my opponent is making the assertion that the government's purpose is to protect the individual against his own poor choices. The constitution is there to prevent encroachments. My opponent makes a valid case argument but does so at the cost of everything else he believes in. Once you open up the government to regulate or disallow a substance the population then gives up those rights. What is next? Perhaps a prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes. Why stop there. We should be protected against all the things we can do to ourselves that cause injury both physical or mental such as seeing certain movies, reading certain books, or listening to certain music. Perhaps certain art should be banned, nude statues or civil war statues or nazz art that represent a dangerous idealogoy. Surely the government knows what is best for everyone and such risks need to be squashed.

That was sarcasm.

The purpose of the Constitution is protect from a government over reach. I look forward to hearing my opponents position on why he feels it is constitutional and a good idea to give up his civil liberties for the greater good of others.
Debate Round No. 1


The thing you need to remember is that the Supreme court has already decided that drug control of marijuana is legal in the case Gonzales v. Raich. The wikipedia link is below:

This would technically make drug control legal. Read it.

What your talking about is Communism. The Constitution is a social contract. Read up on it,(I would recommend John Locke) but it is basically a contract you are born into or agree to when immigrating in. You give up some rights to gain others. It does limit the 3 branches, but also what us as citizens can do. I specifically want to point out Article 1, Section 8. It gives Congress the right over commerce. Technically, Congress is not overstepping it's powers.

NOTE: There is a reason they created three branches you know. So none rise above the other. And they aren't joining together into one happy family any time soon.


Either my opponent is extremely ignorant about the constitution and what makes something constitutional, or she is not serious about a debate.

Bringing up a SCOTUS decision proves nothing. In the history of this country, there are too many times to count where a Supreme court decision is later reversed by a subsequent Supreme court. If my opponent feels like brushing up on this little fact she can look here
If her own contention is that it is constitutional because the SCOTUS says it is, then she is ignorant of history and fails to understand that such decisions can be reversed. No SCOTUS decision makes for permanent settled law. Her contention that because the SCOTUS says so therefore it is " is invalid.

I can go through the entire Bill of rights and show where the war on drugs, or the illegal possession, are unconstitutional or produce unconstitutional results. However, I suspect my opponent is not really open to this discussion. If she wishes to have a real debate on the issue perhaps she would like to discuss the US Constitution and how these laws do not violate the amendments.

I have discussed the 10th already with not counter.

I will discuss the 5th in an abbreviated format should she wish to actually engage in this debate I will furnish the remaining 8 amendments from the constitution and show the violations. I would hope if my opponent were serious about this debate she support her contentions using the US Constitution bill of rights as her point of reference.

The Fifth Amendment creates a number of rights relevant to both criminal and civil legal proceedings. In criminal cases, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a grand jury, forbids "double jeopardy," and protects againstself-incrimination. It also requires that "due process of law" be part of any proceeding that denies a citizen "life, liberty or property" and requires the government to compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.

The 5th amendment prevents the government from taking away private property without due process of law. An individual who owns a "pot" plant, is not doing anything wrong. He is not smoking it. He is not selling it. He only likes the flowers. Marijuana plants have beautiful flowers, but it is illegal to own due to the war on drugs. The act of own a plant is clearly a victimless crime. The government then removes this plant from the home and arrests the individual under the guise of "possession". With no victim who does the defendant face in court? A person accused of robbing, faces his accuser, a person accused of rape faces her accuser, a person accused of murder faces the family as the accuser. Who does the person with a plant in their home face?

For the owning of this plant, the person faces 1-3 years in prison for a victimless crime, and if your plant collection would produce 5 pounds of pot, regardless of your intentions " that is a 10 year jail sentence. This is clearly a violation of the constitution of no unreasonable punishment. And is then forced upon release to subject himself to random drug screening tests " which is again unconstitutional under the premise that no one should be forced to incriminate himself.
Debate Round No. 2


the supreme court decisions are standing until changed. This debate is about drug control today, not drug control in 50 years. The supreme court has the sole power to decide if laws are unconstitutional, and until the supreme court justices change their minds, it is the supreme law of the land. And now a note to the people who will be voting on this debate. As you can see in my opponent's argument, they consider SCOTUS decisions untrustworthy. The job of the Supreme court is to decide if something is constitutional or unconstitutional. If my opponent cannot agree to that, here is a link to the constitution. Its Article 3, just to let you know.

As said in section one, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," The judges make the choice whether something is constitutional or not, and that will stay the law of the land until it is overturned or this nation is destroyed. The Supreme court has made some bad decisions, a good example being Olmstead v. United States, the court case about privacy, but that stayed supreme law of the land until it was overturned by Katz v. United States, which was then overturned by the PATRIOT act, which was not ruled on by the Supreme court.

Next, you mention article 5. I feel we should look at the drug control section of the US code. I will leave you the link.

The us code is all the small laws the government make. These aren't reversed like court cases. The are the rules of America. It mentions "Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully uses, possesses, manufactures, distributes, imports into the customs territory of the United States, exports from the United States, or introduces into an installation, vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used by or under the control of the armed forces a substance described in subsection (b) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct" it specifically mentions you can't posses Marijuana! I am very interested in my opponent's reply.


There is little to put in a rebuttal when you opponent basically states "because they said so'. My young opponent has much to learn... And read.

Her entire debate on the constitutionality of drug control hinges on you to click her link and visit wikipedia and read the case decision. She made no effort to debate this issue. She did not make a single reference from the SCOTUS decision. My opponent failed to to refence the constitution in any siginficant way. Nor did my opponent rebut a single point of my discussion. Like the war on drugs imposes punishments that are do not fit the crime. These punishments are in stark contrast to the US Constitution that prevents cruel and unusual punishments, like life for 3 time convictions of drug possession.

My opponent fails to see the weakness in her case. The entire scope of the SCOTUS decision was about CANNAIBUS. Canabus is a PLANT. THC is a class 1 narcotic. cannaibus exists in a non THC hybrid. Yet this plant is still illegal for no supported reason. The law allows for property to be taken away and rights removed when no law of drug possession was broken.

Heroine and crystal meth are a class 2 narcotics. Class 2 narcotics are less offending and less restrictive. My opponent has supplied no information in round 2 or 3 supporting the existing SCOTUS decision could apply to anything other than what it was decided on - canabus. Yet this debate is about drug control. My opponent has brought into this discussion a SCOTUS decision about a plant, NOT ABOUT DRUGS. She is implying it is about drugs, yet there is NO mention of THC in her linked discussion.

Any attempts to apply this case to "DRUGS" must be revisited by the SCOTUS as this is clearly an agriculture case.

Canibus is a plant. This lack of original though and discussion around what is posed as a constitutional debate by my opponent falls prey to creativity, and that quick win on a "gotchya" framed question/answer slowly becomes a loss.

Winning a debate is not about the right answer, it about the better argument. My opponent has yet to make an original argument.
Debate Round No. 3


TheLawIsOnMySide forfeited this round.


I can only assume my opponent had a change of mind and can no longer argue such a horrible position.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
OK, I'll pass on this one. Studies show that alcohol is more damaging than marijuana and less than cocaine so my argument couldn't be consistent.
Posted by TheLawIsOnMySide 9 months ago
Marijuana, Cocaine,and others like these will be what we are debating. No alcohol or cigarettes control will be argued about.
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
Sorry, I withdraw that statement. Technically, it could be said that alcohol prohibition was constitutional because those laws were passed via the mechanisms in which the constitution allows for. Are you including alcohol in your debate since there are minors that get addicted to alcohol?
Posted by matt8800 9 months ago
If you would like to the definition of drugs to just marijuana, I would be happy to debate you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.