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

Is the War On Drugs Constitutional?

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  
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: 2/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 86978
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




While I understand that the Drug War isn't in violation of any specific provision of The Constitution, the act of the Government dictating what to put into my body, what vices to engage in (I can drink and smoke cigarettes, but I'll go through legal hell over a joint!!???), violates the spirit and nature of The Constitution. One can argue that the Laws against the drugs are more dangerous than the drugs themselves (Cartels and street gangs only thrive and profit because of the Law against drugs. Legalize drugs, put the Cartel out of business...). I think that the War On Drugs is a tremendous waste of tax payer money, that money would be better used on education and treatment (In cases of addiction. Where it's just a vice, the drug is the same as alcohol: Use responsibly, and nobody will have any problems...). I think it's led to rampant racial profiling in the post-Civil Rights era, I also think that our Prisions are overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, more overpopulated than Russian or Chinese prisions (These 2 countries are ruled by authoritarian Communist regimes, everything is a crime in those countries; what an embarrassment!!!!!). Drugs are not like plutonium or uranium, they do not have the potential to decimate our society on the scale of, say, a hydrogen bomb (Anybody disagreeing on that notion is clearly dillusional...), so for the Government to so actively and fervently ban and outlaw drugs, thinking that they can 'eradicate' drugs, is silly and absurd wishful thinking... The U.S. Government does this on a platform of public safety and public interest. If that's the case, what about all of my friends that have died driving drunk or in accidents caused by drunk drivers!!!??? Why not ban cars and alcohol, even declare War, dare I say!!!!!????? There's such a double standard at play here; when my vice and sin is SUSPECTED of being capable of causing harm (By some racist newspapers in the 1930's!!! Let black men and Hispanic men get high and 'think they're good enough to' mate with white women, do I LOOK like I care!!??? Google it, that was a core argument that led to marijuana becoming illegal, more so than Reefer Madness, and this was funded by Lobbyists and special interest groups...), 60-years-War and average people having to endure this absurdly arduous system of harassment and constantly waiting around and dealing with unethical individuals, just to get a plant that grows in the frickin' ground!!! This is so OUTRAGEOUS because when YOUR sin and vice kills friends, parents, children, teachers, and elders, YOU don't give a crap because YOU wanna go get drunk!!!!! Screw everybody else, I don't care if other people suffer and die, I wanna go get drunk!!!!! Wait, isn't that the lesson we learned after Prohibition, that nothing in life is perfect, everything in moderation, and it's better regulated than unregulated!!??? We didn't learn our lesson, and so now history repeats itself..... (When will we learn?????)


Since there hasn't been a clearly posted format for this debate, I will just assume it will be a back and forth that allows rebuttals and presentation of new points in the same post.
I'd like to start off this debate with the disclaimer that as a Canadian citizen, I am not fully versed in the nuances of US Constitutional Law, and will perhaps from time to time rely on external resources. However, I believe that a rational analysis of the subject does not require previous knowledge on the issue, as long as valid and reliable sources can be accessed.

Seeing as how my opponent has initiated the debate, I thought it appropriate to address his comments first.

The first allegation he proposes is the restriction on the substances that a citizen of the US is allowed to put into his/her body is a violation of "the spirit and nature of the Constitution". Rather than listing out all the articles and amendments of the Constitution, I would like to politely place the onus on my opponent to show what parts of the Constitution's "nature and spirit" are being violated. If he would decline to do so, I would be more than happy to go through the Constitution and all of its amendments to show that it is not being violated.

His next arguments involve blaming the War on Drugs for social problems such as racial profiling and overcrowded prisons. Although these are interesting topics to debate, they are not related at all to the constitutionality of the War on Drugs, but rather its inefficient implementation.

His next argument claims that drugs cannot be likened to radioactive materials since they apparently cannot decimate an entire society. I would ask that my opponent research the Opium Wars in China, and respond after doing so.

My opponent's next point poses the question of why the US Government does not also prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Additionally, he mentions the prohibition of marijuana use. I would like to once again remind my opponent that the legalization of alcohol consumption in America has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the War on Drugs. I believe his confusion regarding this matter stems from his belief that the War on Drugs is a war on "all drugs", which is not the case. In fact, the War on Drugs does not encompass rubbing alcohol, bath salts, or over-the-counter medication. Instead, various other government programs are tasked with dealing with alcohol consumption and regulations for non-prescribed pharmaceuticals. The efficacy of such programs is not related to the constitutionality of the War on Drugs.

In summary, the premise of this debate deals with the question of the constitutionality of the War on Drugs. I have appealed to the opponent to shoulder the burden of proof as it relates to the "spirit and nature of the Constitution" that he claims the War on Drugs has violated. In the event he declines to do so, I will willingly do so myself. I then proceed to dismantle various arguments used to support his thesis, as none of them relate to the constitutionality of the War on Drugs, but rather to its inefficient implementation.

I thank opponent for the time he has spent in writing his argument, and I look forward to the next stage of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


The U.S. Constitution was founded upon the principles of freedom and equality. I specifically stated that the Drug War violates no specific provision of the U.S. Constitution (Go ahead, read the Constitution, 1st 10 Amendments, specifically. If you weren't biased, you'd meet me half way and agree on the fact that the U.S. Government wasn't intended to regulate vices, and that the Drug War violates the spirit and principles of The Constitution. Most of The Founders smoked hemp, George Washington was known to even own a hemp farm; it is highly doubtful that they would approve, in ANY sense, of The War On Drugs). Considering that you're debating Laws of a foreign country, I'd postulate that you have no stake in this debate, and that you're either griefing me or you have something to gain from drugs being illegal in the U.S. I'm rebuking your citing of the Chinese Opium Wars (That was funded by Rothschild and special interests. The Law against the drug kills more people than the drug itself...). Now, you're clearly confused about Alcohol Prohibition in the U.S. (Wikipedia should be able to fill in the blanks). Same thing as the Drug War but only alcohol was banned, from the early 1920's to 1930. It was overturned because the Government came to it's senses, people kept drinking anyway, more people were dying from shoddy alcohol because the market was unregulated, and it led to the rise of the Outlaw (Pretty Boy Floyd, Clyde Barrow, Bonnie Parker, and George Kelly. These are the predecessors of El Chapo and Pablo Escobar, learn a lesson or history will be repeating itself..
...). Big Government is the problem, the drugs need to be legal so that they can be regulated, and so we can put The Cartel out of business (Js, The Cartel doesn't check for I.D., they have no qualms about selling drugs to kids. When you regulate it, the gas station clerk, or doctor, or whoever, isn't gonna risk a $5,000 fine, losing their business license, and possible jail time. The gangsters' resolve is to make money at all costs regardless of morals or ethics. My question is, why do you like such a system, why are you defending a system that victimizes children and minorities!!!???? The outrage, didn't your Mother raise you better than to be brainwashed into supporting an evil system of Law!!!??? You guys in Canada have legal weed, and I'm honestly unsure as to whether you guys have surrendered the Drug War yet *Seems to be*... I will gauge your next response, and from there I will be able to determine whether or not you're bought and paid for, whether or not you're, a shill, because your only half-decent argument was to challenge me to quote The Constitution, it worked only because of your perspective of a foreigner with no knowledge of The U.S. Constitution.....)


Once again I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for his arguments.

I agree with my opponent that the US Constitution was founded on the principles of freedom and equality. I duly noted my opponent's admission that The War on Drugs did not violate any written section of the Constitution, and never accused him of alleging it to be true.

I would like to note that personal attacks are not welcome in rational debates, and as such, I ask my opponent to refrain from commenting on my integrity, my family members, and my citizenship. Additionally, I assure him that I have no reason to diminish the rights of minors or minorities and that a thorough analysis of my argument would conclude no bias towards or for the American Government and its policies.

As before, my opponent brings up an interesting point that is unfortunately not applicable to the current argument. He states that former presidents, including the Founding Fathers, consumed hemp. I would like to remind my opponent that President Washington also sent militia forces to kill Natives in order to make room for settlers. In any case, whether or not a former president, even if he is one of the founding fathers, approves of a current policy does not make it unconstitutional.

My opponent's rejection of the Opium Wars as an example of drug use being devastating to a society is also interesting in that he has completely missed my point. He assumes that death is the sole indicator of the amount of destruction drugs cause to society. It does not matter who provides the drugs and/or funds the drug operation. My use of this example was a rebuttal to his statement that "drugs do not have the potential to devastate our society".

I admit my wording as it regards the ban on alcohol was vague and I would like to reword my argument. My response was meant to present the fact that there are, in fact, government policies meant to regulate the production and sale of alcohol. The fact that people die from excessive alcohol consumption, accidents, and alcohol-fuelled crimes does not in of itself prove the unconstitutionality of the War on Drugs. It simply speaks to the inefficiency of those programs.

As a quick fact check, it interesting to note that marijuana usage is indeed illegal by federal standards, but can become legalized by state laws. Additionally, the reason marijuana is illegal in the US is because it is a high-abuse risk drug, and there are "no established medical uses for it". The second part of that reasoning is highly controversial and does not discredit the War on Drugs itself, but perhaps the inclusion of marijuana as a prohibited substance. If it can be proven that marijuana is a medically established substance (of which topic I do not feel the need to discuss at the moment), the legalization of marijuana is to be questioned, not the War on Drugs.

I do not believe I had made myself clear enough on the issue of legalization of drugs, seeing as how my opponent brings up the dangers created by not legalizing prohibited substances, such as drug cartels etc. The War on Drugs itself is a policy implementation meant to enforce drug laws in the US. What does this mean? If a specific drug is outlawed, there are consequences and punishments. Those punishments are carried out under the program we know as "The War on Drugs". This means that to question the legality of prohibiting a drug does not constitute an attack on the enforcement of the punitive measures, but rather on the laws that require a punitive measure in the first place. In other words, if my opponent wants drug legalization, he should focus his time on the policies that mark those drugs as illegal, rather than the policies in place to enforce punitive measures dictated by the aforementioned policies.

My opponent questions my support for this system that enforces these laws. My reply is simply that I have no issue with the systems themselves, but rather with some of the laws that require such a system to be in place. It is perhaps true that cannabis should not be illegal. That argument alone, however, does not nullify the need to have a system that prohibits, for example, the trafficking of cocaine, which would still be illegal should cannabis become legalized. My opponent argues that drugs should be legal. I do not wish to contest him on this issue, as it is not the goal of this debate. Should drugs ever become legal in the United States, there would no longer exist the need to have a system like the War on Drugs to punish traffickers and users. However, even the abolishing of such a system, if it were ever to happen, would not be due to the unconstitutionality of the system itself, but rather for its lack of utility. Put into other words, until all drugs have become legalized, the War on Drugs is still needed.

Before I end this segment of the debate, I would like to include a final miscellaneous note regarding my opponent's remarks on the "Canadian" War on Drugs. Marijuana has yet to become a legal substance in Canada, although this has been promised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. If legalized, it will be highly regulated and monitored by government institutions, the structure of which are currently being debated by government officials. These institutions will more than likely include policies that punish offenders who break regulations concerning cannabis usage. It is highly doubtful marijuana will be sold at any location (legally) apart from government-operated retailers.
Debate Round No. 2


.....You literally spent all day trying to refute every single word that I said..... It's good to study the issue before engaging the debate, but you've already engaged the debate. While the nature of e-debating might allow this, some may infer that it is an attempt at grief (I understand, people have lives and people are busy, but it seems like you're trying to "overwhelm" me by drawing out the discussion into more than what it needs to be. You did this yesterday too, you posed a challenge and it took you like 13 hours to respond to Round 1). Regardless, I just wanted to address that real quick. I feel very passionate about this issue, 10+ years of extensive research on the matter, 10 years of being rebuked by people who are brainwashed, and immoral individuals who understand the principles of supply-and-demand, whenever you outlaw a product on the marketplace, the demand for it skyrockets, and if there's always somebody to supply it then the cycle gets increasingly vicious (The Drug War also infringes upon the principles of Free Enterprise and the Free Market, Conservative ideals that many Americans hold to their hearts). Immoral individuals take advantage of this profitable legal situation, because seeing as it's illegal there are no regulations (When we outlawed alcohol in the 1920's, it led to the rise of the Outlaw. Refer to the legal catch-22 revolving supply-and-demand and the Drug War. When you do business with unethical individuals, their only aim is to make money. Without Courts or oversight, these low-life individuals are free to reign until they get caught with drugs, usually they don't get in trouble for the actual crimes that they commit that have that oh-so important "victim" element in it. Basically a system where crime is allowed to flourish, until you get caught selling 1 item to another individual. You go to jail after the fact, and for something that's really not a crime... It seems to me that you pick and choose what you wish to infer from my arguments, a tactic called "spin", a judgement of bad faith on your part. You also accused me of personal attacks and attacking your family, all I did was question why a Canadian citizen wants to debate U.S. Law with a U.S. citizen, as I will always have the home-field advantage over you in that respect. I also questioned why your Mother raised you to not question anything, as alcohol kills people about as much as the other drugs, in addition to those killed by the Laws against the other drugs. That was not a character attack, that was an appeal to your sense of morale. Claiming it as a "personal attack", is a petty jab...) I would go as far as to postulate that it is YOU who has completely missed my point(s); the opium did not devastate China, the War against opium did. Then the Japanese took over, then Communism took over..... Nice try painting President George Washington as Adolph Hitler before his time!!! The French & Indian War was initiated and instigated by Britain and France; America was just colonies, pawns of the Imperialists, Washington was simply not the leader he became during the Revolution between 1754 and 1763 (The years the French & Indian War took place). It was President Andrew Jackson who committed genocide amongst the Natives (In Elementary School, we called it "The Trail Of Tears", like it was cute or somesh*t. They watered it so badly, wasn't 'till High School that I found out the truth about our Holocaust. Now you only see Native Americans in North Dakota, Arizona, New Mexico, and a couple of other States.....) I'm aware of States' Rights, this can easily be rescinded, like President Obama's Amnesty Executive Orders, by a future Administration, so don't think it's all good just yet... You using the Federal Government's exact wording exposes you for the shill that you are (There is NO evidence given of this high potential for abuse, plus the Laws against it prevent research from being conducted that could plausibly refute this brass assumption, though I liken it more to the Political Spin that I was referencing earlier...) Dr. Sanjay Gupta fervently advocates medicinal marijuana, you have more advanced knowledge and a more sophisticated grip on medicine than a man who is licensed in medicine!!!!!?????? Research "Charlotte's Web", a medicinal strain that's very high in CBD (Indigenous chemical that grants relief to those suffering seizures and epilepsy. No euphoric effects), and very low in THC (The active ingredient that produces the euphoric "high" feeling). You mean to tell me, that you'd rather have a 9 year old boy with epilepsy, suffer the consequences of being prescribed over 500 medications, than (Essentially) just have the boy smoke some weed that won't get him high!!!!????? You're an animal, a monster; didn't your Mother teach you better, to question things around you, than to just mindlessly support such cruel barbarity without even acknowledging the elephant in the room!!!!!??????? When a specific drug is outlawed, people want it MORE (People want what they can't have). This causes DEMAND for the product to skyrocket. When DEMAND goes up, prices go up. When an immoral individual, sees a situation where he can make a lot of money because a vice is illegal, step all over everybody in the community, jack-up prices because of the lack of regulations, and lace product with different products (Poisoning or false advertising. You be the Judge, either-which way it wouldn't be happening in a regulated market...), you will always have somebody to SUPPLY the DEMAND that you've created. By outlawing drugs, you are making a conscience effort to eradicate them. But in such a climate of supply-and-demand, and when you've got such big numbers flying all around, you're never going to accomplish your goal, to eradicate this supposed "threat" to the "public safety". So if that isn't your goal, then locking everybody in a Prison cell to make money must be (For-profit Prisons are making a killing off the Drug War...) Either which-way, your arguments supporting this are misguided and wrong at the least, evil and barbaric at it's extreme. You guys have a situation similar to Washington D.C. (It is basically decriminalized and legal within Canada, the commercial sale of the plant is prohibited by outdated unjust probably-racist Laws). In closing, the 21st Amendment to The U.S. Constitution, which was passed in the early 1930's, explicitly repealed the failed Alcohol Prohibition experiment in the United States that I will keep referencing throughout this debate for it's historical precedence and significance. The People woke up, the Government woke up, and they ended the mayhem with a Constitutional Amendment that was an admission that the Government was wrong for imposing this failed experiment on us. The Drug War WILL end the same way, again historical precedence. They say that history will repeat itself, until we learn a lesson. I will FORCE this generation to wake up and learn their lesson from history, as I'm sick of this mayhem and madness, I just wanna pass a Constitutional Amendment and call it a day already!!!!!!!!!!


I would once again like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal, and would like to apologize for my "13-hour" delay between the previous responses; not only do I not spend my entire day on the internet waiting for debate replies, I also happen to be running on a slightly different time schedule due to professional reasons.

In the first section of his remarks, he comments on the style of rebuttals that I have been employing. He accuses me of "trying to refute every single word that [he] said". Unless I am mistaken, most debating styles' rebuttal formats involve the refutation of claims made by an opponent. Additionally, I apologize for not being able to present a more structured approach, as the opponent has failed to provide me with a structured argument.

In the next segment, my opponent seems to suggest that the principles of free enterprise and free market in the United States should be held to be more important than the responsibility for the government to protect its citizens. Due to some of the remarks I have seen in his previous arguments, I would like to make the disclaimer here that my point here is not pertinent to the drug trade, but rather the principle that he has proposed. Indeed, if the American people were to embrace free enterprise and free trade above all else, the sale nuclear materials and chemical weapons should then be legal, with no punitive measures enforced. Obviously, there are instances where certain exceptions to the rule of free market exist. Once again, the question of whether or not drugs falls under this category of exceptions is not the current subject of debate; we are debating the constitutionality of a system meant to enforce punitive measures mandated by other legislative acts. In other words, if you are being arrested on drug charges, it is the law at blame, not the police.

The next rebuttal is to my claims that my opponent was presenting ad hominem attacks during his first rebuttal:
"You also accused me of personal attacks and attacking your family, all I did was question why a Canadian citizen wants to debate U.S. Law with a U.S. citizen, as I will always have the home-field advantage over you in that respect. I also questioned why your Mother raised you to not question anything..."

I believe this quote speaks for itself.

My opponent's remarks on China were short, yet straight to the point. He believes, unless I have misread his argument, that the wars following Britain's introduction of opium to China were the real source of the problems, not the opium itself. What he seems to be saying then, is that opium addiction on a large scale (4-12 million people) did not happen. Although I strongly disagree with him on this point, the dangerousness of drugs is not the point of contention here, and therefore I believe it a waste of time to continue with this line of debate.

(;, page 34)

I still do not understand how my opponent could infer from my statement that I was accusing George Washington of being an "Adolf Hitler" type leader. I simply brought up the fact he did indeed allow the resettlement and migration of many native tribes in order to make space for settlers, sometimes at the price of Native lives. At this time, America's Independence had already been declared.

(;, see 08/20/1794)

My opponent's argument that States' Rights can be rescinded easily does not, once again, prove the unconstitutionality of the War on Drugs. Rather, it exposes what some may perceive to be a flaw in the Constitutional legal system in America. Once again, this is not the debate topic. Additionally, I was not aware that it was against debate rules to use legal wording that is written by the US Government. In fact, from my opponent's opening remarks, I had assumed (perhaps erroneously) that his support for the Constitution was also symbolic of support for the Government, and that any problems he had were directed towards specific policies, not the institution itself.

Furthermore, a lot of research is being conducted into the viability of marijuana as a medical-use substance. I did not, in any way whatsoever, suggest that marijuana does not qualify to be a medically viable substance, neither did I question the legitimacy of any researchers who would say the same.

At this point, I was once again accused, with my opponent using language that can only be construed as an attack on my person:

"You're an animal, a monster; didn't your Mother teach you better, to question things around you, than to just mindlessly support such cruel barbarity without even acknowledging the elephant in the room!!!!!??????? "

The next section deals with the market mechanisms at play when a substance is deemed to be prohibited. I have no problems with any of my opponent's reasoning, which goes to say that my opponent has perhaps not read my last post carefully. I did not, in any way whatsoever support the idea of keeping drugs illegal in a non-regulated black market system. In fact, I encouraged my opponent to continue supporting the legalization of drugs, but directing his attention to the laws that require punitive measures, rather than the laws that enforce those punitive measures.

I strongly condone my opponent's use of the word "racist" in the sentence preceding his closing remarks, as he fails to provide evidence for allegations of such severity. However, I applaud his attack on the laws behind the prohibition of drugs, rather than the mechanisms to enforce those laws. This is the first time in this debate that he has done so.

As like before, whenever my opponent correctly attacks the legislation behind the prohibition of certain substances, I must acknowledge his proper conduct. In his closing remarks, he once again refers to the Prohibition, and the subsequent 21st Amendment. I would suggest that he view the current topic of debate in the same light. The police officers and prisons were not at fault for the Prohibition, and my opponent has rightly chosen to not attack their actions. Instead, the legislation that mandates punishment should be abolished (in the case of Prohibition, this was the 18th Amendment). In the situation of our current debate, I would like to redirect my opponent's scathing remarks and aggression towards the Controlled Substances Act. Indeed, the only reason there exists a War on Drugs is because of that piece of legislation. In fact, to abolish a War on Drugs would actually prove illegal as the CSA requires by law punishment for crimes that it outlines.

Debate Round No. 3


It's ok to have differing schedules (That's why I set it to 72 hours), I just feel that you wait for me to respond, then do your research, then make your response, as it takes a day for you to respond (You are supposed to refute claims in a debate, that is true. I was pointing out that your clinging to losing arguments, with spin and numbers that don't add up to the reality of the situation, plus the fact that you're a Canadian citizen and as such have no voice or say-so within U.S. Politics, it seems as though you are griefing me through a false facade of a "diplomatic disagreement", this is supported by your claim that I'm "waiting all day on your debate response", which is false; if I'm awake and have cell phone service, Gmail emails me when you reply. As a decent human being, I respond if I'm not too busy and feel up to the task, I also don't research as I debate, I cite what I know at the time. While e-debating may enable you to spend 13 hours researching and piling up a response, I still frown upon such practices as unsportsmanly and cheap. With the fact that you are a foreign outsider, my questioning of your stake in this debate about domestic policy is not a personal attack, it is a valid and legitimate question, you claiming an attack is both cheap and petty. The reason I take a hostile tone is that you wish, to some degree, to influence my country's policy, your posts have an influence on American voters who's say-so influences the outcome, your passion for this debate, despite not being affected regardless of if we maintain or repeal the current policy, is seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY questionable..... No matter, to each his own, it is my choice and my Right to proceed with this debate...) I believe your statistics regarding the Opium Wars are skewed and purposefully misleading (That "Spin" thing I mentioned earlier, and shall keep mentioning so long as you continue to employ it); records regarding casualties only include combatants in the War, not overdoses from opium (One of your greatest losing argument, yet you cling to it for dear life... It reminds me of Donald Trump at the Republican debates, more than 1/2 the time he is clueless as to wtf he's talking about regarding policy.....) You specifically stated that President George Washington slaughtered Natives to make room for Settlers in Round 2, to imply that his consumption of hemp was "bad". That, another pathetic argument that you cling to desperately, was absurd for numerous reasons: The expansionism known as Manifest Destiny occurred under President Thomas Jefferson (Also a Founding Father, but you specifically cited Washington. False, historical precedent DOES count as a source...), as was the Lewis & Clark expedition. During these times, Settlement expanded at the expense of the Natives, during these times Natives died for Imperialistic reasons, "these times" were the early 1800's, before we fought the War Of 1812 against the British, it escalated to the "Trail Of Tears", which occurred under President Andrew Jackson (President George Washington, who remains distinguished as the 1st President and the only Independent President, was in Office from April 30, 1789 - March 4, 1797, the only bad relations with the Natives under Washington's tenure involved both sides of the American Revolution using the Natives as pawns in their Wars, and the occasional conflicts with Settlers. We're talking isolated incidents here where Settlers died, Natives died, and the U.S. Army was never dispatched. Your insinuation that Washington committed a mini-Holocaust, for "Manifest Destiny" before it was even a concept, and that he was Imperialistic because he smoked hemp, is ridiculously absurd and you should feel embarrassed; I then proceed to dismantle various arguments used to support your thesis, as none of them relate to the fact that Washington and The Founding Fathers were great, enlightened men, who also smoked hemp, and would be appalled and outraged by it's prohibition). The American Revolution, was started, because the British TAXED tea too much. Notice I use caps for "taxed", not to yell or show anger, but to emphasize that even the British didn't go so far as to outlaw tea; antioxidants indigenous to tea is a drugs. Drugs, apparently, always kill and must always be outlawed; baaad!!!!! If the British were to have outlawed tea, the American People would have their Constitutional Amendment that prevents the Government from banishing/outlawing vices, and if you had the slightest strain of common sense, you'd meet me half-way and at least agree there!!!!!!) You implied I should just be content with States' Rights regarding medicinal/recreational marijuana, I rebuked with the fact that it can be recognized by one Administration, and then rescinded by the next (Historical precedent: The George W. Bush administration attacked Dispensaries and States' Rights. The Administration of Barack Obama has decided not to utilize the Federal Government and DEA to violate States' Rights; this is all subject to change, understand???) On another note, violating States' Rights ALSO violates the spirit and nature of the U.S. Constitution (Federal Law is the norm, de facto standard for how States should Govern and operate. If the Will of The People, State Law, conflicts with the Will of the Government, then The People should win, not this "House Always Wins" bs that you're advocating. The Founders agreed with this thesis, and went a step further to say that when State Laws override the Federal status quo, it is seen as an experiment. If the legislation succeeds, more States can adopt it, should The People residing there agree. If it fails, there's historical precedent for others who may wish to repeat history... While not fascism, this "House Always WIns" method of Governing that you propose is a bold step in the wrong direction.....) Bottom line here, pal: You're not gonna dictate what I debate about or what I put into my body. If you don't like what I say or what I do with MY body, then you can leave my presence and cease contact with me, but I will fight to the DEATH for my Rights, and won't take any crap from outsiders trying to infringe upon them to achieve their own agenda!!!!! That claim of you being a barbaric monster was Spin, it is effective because by being staunchly against drug reform, you say that children suffering from epilepsy deserve to die from an overdose, and endure the side-effects of being prescribed over 500 medications, than simply smoke Charlette's Web, that virtually lacks psychoactive effects, and your defense of such is to whine and play victim, like Ben Carson!!!!! I use such Spin because you come from the "Public Safety" side of the debate, that side typically utilizes manipulation to create a facade of a moral high ground; all drug users, dealers, and advocates are devils and monsters to that side. What I did with the Spin was, I gave YOU a taste of your OWN medicine, that was 50+ years in the making for you and that side; grab a straw and suck it up!!!!!!!! Canadian Law against drugs (Like all European/Commonwealth countries) are carbon copies of U.S. drug Laws. Due to time restraints, you can read about Harry Anslinger, The Fix, and how the American South became really fervent about it during the Civil Rights movement (Facts, a source, evidence. You claiming that the Drug War isn't and wasn't racist has been thoroughly debunked, claims to the contrary will result in you being attacked and labeled as a "Shill" and a "Troll". If this happens, you will inevitably protest; this just serves as a reminder to the readers when it comes time to vote... And while I dislike the HuffPo's Liberal bias, they have really good anti-Drug War sentiment that's accepted by the mainstream. The same situation with The Guardian, but applied to Mass Surveillance instead of the Drug War). Citing the U.S. Government is fine, if they have evidence to back their thesis up (They do not, and Laws against marijuana make funding such research extraordinarily difficult, even in States where it's legal like Colorado and Washington). Backing up an argument that bares no weight makes you a sell-out or a Shill in my eyes... In closing, We The People Of The United States Of America WILL update the 21st Amendment (I was not shaming the Police Officers or Prisions of the 1920's for merely doing their jobs, I complain that they failed to speak out against the abuse that was Prohibition, for enabling a system that led to the rise of violent Outlaws such as Pretty Boy Floyd and Clyde Barrow; the irony is that the Outlaws the Police enabled through enforcing unethical Laws, ended up killing their Officers, who eventually killed the Outlaws in shoot-outs in retaliation. What a shameful waste of blood across-the-board, all to control other people's vices and what they consume.....), to END and SURRENDER this supposed "Drug War, we will ALSO add a clause, that SPECIFICALLY stipulates, that it is INDEED Unconstitutional, for the United States Government to banish, or outlaw, vices!!!!! We will end the madness, end the pandemonium, and end the abusive fraud that has been perpetuated, since the 1950's, on We The People Of The United States, using OUR OWN tax payer dollars, you expect me to use my own tax payer dollars, to fund a Law I find abusive and unnecessary (I go in circles here, and I apologize to those reading, except my opponent, SierraOne, but this guy has to be a frickin' Shill man, how do you just blatantly fail to comprehend how the nature of the Drug War violates so many American principles!!??? No matter, see that method of spin??? The more Advocates that Troll Shills using their own medicine against them, the less their mental manipulation of a "moral high ground" works on gullible or uneducated people who listen to this garbage spew and then go vote.....).


I do believe, at this point in the debate, that if viewers were to read the text of the previous posts carefully and thoughtfully, they would understand the following:

- My nationality does not affect the validity of my arguments.
- No explicit or implicit references to a "mini-holocaust" on the part of President George Washington were made. The argument was
simply that hemp should be legalized because a former president used it is not a cogent line of reasoning. If my opponent is unwilling to accept my claims concerning native rights' under his administration, my original point still stands.
- No explicit or implicit references to my support of a "House always Wins" government were mentioned by me. In fact, I specifically stated that people unhappy about certain laws should challenge those laws. However, I pointed out multiple times that my opponent has been criticizing and targeting the wrong legislation in his quest for drug legalization.
- There have been no attempts to "dictate" the substances that my opponent can or should subject his body to, neither have there been attempts to restrict his freedom of speech, whether implied or explicit.
- There have been no statements on my part that have questioned the efficacy of marijuana for medical use. In fact, some of my statements could very easily be construed to support the legalization of marijuana.

I apologize for the brevity of my post in this fourth round, but after carefully reading my opponent's reply, I felt that an argument devoid of real content merited a similar response.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to remind my opponent that while his nationality doesn't necessarily affect the merits of his arguments , it does affect the merits of him arguing (I didn't think I'd have to put a disclaimer "Only respond if you live in America!!!!!") By falsely claiming Washington killed Natives to make room for Settlement, you imply that it is Washington's fault that there aren't many Native Americans left (i.e. Holocaust). No, you never used the term "House Always Wins" but by stipulating that States should follow Federal Law to a tee (And claims like "Repealing CSA is illegal"), you are advocating a system that denies The People's voice, and while not fascism, is dangerously close... By merit of you arguing this with me and advocating a continuation of the Drug War, you very much ARE telling me what to put into my body (What's essentially a Military unit, the DEA, breathing down a person's throat over what they put in their body is enough to manipulate many to go for booze over bud; the complaints about health and safety and car crashes apply more to alcohol...) I would like to touch up on the main reason to end the Drug War: The rise of synthetic drugs. Look, if people want to get high, they're gonna get high. If they were to rid the world of all the heroin, all the crack, all the weed, all the blow, people will STILL find ways to get high!!! Whether snorting bath salts to simulate cocaine (Known to cause psychosis, I'd rather coke be legal...), smoking K2 (Or Spice, imitation weed. Also known to cause psychosis, weed is the bipolar opposite of this synthetic), or smoking Krockodil (Imitation heroin that's made in Russia, known to cause psychosis and peeling of the skin.....). With synthetics, you see Prohibition/Drug War X 1,000 (DEA bans a chemical one week, synthetic in sale declines. New chemical, new name, sales skyrocket. DEA goes through proposals and the motions to ban new chemical, China and Germany have the next 3 chemicals waiting.). At the end of the day, it all boils down to whether or not the Government should be controlling private individual citizens and what vices they indulge in. In closing, I would like to remind my opponent as to why I attacked him so badly in Round 4 (Read his Round 4 closer, clearly got sand itchin' down there...): In Round 1, I made the declaration that anybody comparing "illegal" drugs to an atom bomb is delusional and won't be taken seriously. In Round 4, you claim that applying the Conservative principles of Free Market and Free Enterprise to "drugs" is the equivalent of applying it to nuclear materials and chemical weapons (WMDs are NOT vices, research what a "vice" is before posting Round 5. It's 1 thing for the Government to place restrictions on weapons of War, it's an entirely different matter and concept altogether to do the same vices.....) Since SierraOne sincerely thinks that ending the Drug War is equivalent to legalizing WMDs, I decided to devote Round 4 and parts of Round 5 to attacking him for being a Shill, for spreading his preposterous ideals like a bad virus, like Zika!!!!!


I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for this debate. It was very enjoyable from start to finish, as debates always are with respectful opponents.

I was not aware that it is highly taboo for a Canadian to debate about American politics and law. I would like to thank my opponent for imparting that knowledge to me, whether or not it is true.

Additionally, I was unaware that factual statements about casualties of war (that specifically pertained to one race of people, and is generally accepted as historical truth) is an automatic implication of genocide/holocaust. I am curious as to how many people share this view. I will look further into this.

My only reply to my opponent's repeated accusation that I employ a "House always Wins" mentality is some advice on quoting and opponent during a debate. "Repealing CSA is illegal" is not the same thing as "In fact, to abolish a War on Drugs would actually prove illegal as the CSA requires by law punishment for crimes that it outlines." Please quote properly in future debates, as a courtesy to your opponents.

It seems as if I am being extra forgetful in this debate. I was quite certain I had addressed my position on drugs?

"I did not, in any way whatsoever support the idea of keeping drugs illegal in a non-regulated black market system. In fact, I encouraged my opponent to continue supporting the legalization of drugs, but directing his attention to the laws that require punitive measures, rather than the laws that enforce those punitive measures."

Perhaps my opponent simply forgot to read it.

Finally, I was unaware that debate arguments, presented in a logical, concise, and
legible format are the equivalent of the Zika virus. I apologize in advance for any unsuspecting readers I may have infected. Please contact your local hospital to be quarantined immediately.

I would like to thank the voters and viewers who have read/will read this debate. Enjoy!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SierraOne 2 years ago
My apologies for the small font size on the final post, it seems as if the font size changed by itself.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 2 years ago
People feel too strongly about weed and all the other drugs, does this argument make the illegal drugs "very minor" and Laws against them unenforceable, as well!!??? And there's no "greater good" in the Government bullying sovereign nonviolent citizens because violent extremists like you get off to controlling other people!!!!! Government can prevent 1 person from harming another, assuming that the harmed party is innocent, but if you have no victim then you have no crime, dunce!!!!! Why must you torture children with epilepsy (By forcing them to endure the effects and eventually die from over 500 medications) with your brainwashing that was influenced by racist propaganda from the 1930's!!??? (Medicinal Marijuana is a legitimate thing, I doubt some random Troll on a debate forum has more knowledge and medical expertise like Dr. Sanjay Gupta...)
But no, @Bocaj1000, dangerous proposition for you here: People die from religion, religion caused many major Wars throughout history, plus Cults manipulate and abuse their congregate for financial gain, under the guises of "religion" and "freedom of religion". Cars kill people, people drive drunk and die (Plus pollution and yuckiness, just take a horse carriage to work you lazy arrogant jerk!!!!!) People die on airplanes (Whether mystery MH-370 disappearances or 9/11 Terror attacks, airplanes kill people because people die in them). STDs kill people...should we make SEX illegal!!??? Tell me why we shouldn't ban cars, alcohol, sex, airplanes, and religion!!???? (INCLUDING YOUR religion, you intolerant whacko extremist!!!!!)
Posted by Bocaj1000 2 years ago
Not only should "recreational" drugs be illegal, but all non-prescription drugs AND cigarettes should be illegal as well. Alcohol should best be made illegal too, but it is a very minor drug and too many people think strongly about it. People aren't allowed to kill themselves, so they shouldn't be allowed to posion their bodies. And the government has all right to prevent you from damaging your body for the greater good.
Posted by EccentricSenator314 2 years ago
Drugs are a vice. Like your alcohol commercials say "Use responsibly". If people use drugs responsibly, it is their body and their Right; step off!!!!! The thing is that a person who drinks alcohol...their actions not only influence what they go through but also other people. If you look into the local news, you will see that there are many reports of people who drink alcohol that commit crimes while drunk, drive and crash into other innocent people, abuse their children, and other acts that hurt mostly other innocent people. So its not that the government is dictating your actions, they are trying to protect other innocent citizens. Make alcohol illegal, since we're banishing vices and Rights (Or what about football!!??? Brain injuries, PTSD-esque trauma, I don't want that violent garbage in my country, it's disgusting, people's kids are dying!!!!! Or BASEBALL, the repetitive strain injuries the players endure, every single player uses steroids!!??? Oh, and the drunken violence, debauchery, and mayhem that plagues a town whenever the Super Bowl or World Series forces it's way into town!!!!!????? Screw that, my children won't exposed to such violent garbage, all in the name of "sport", or gambling and smacking a guy's rear, as outsiders call it!!!!! Your vices and entertainment are reckless and destructive when misused as well, part of growing up and being an adult is realizing that nothing in life is perfect, and that sometimes things slip through the cracks, but at the end of the day we must respect everybody as an individual, this includes their vices and Rights. If you refuse to acknowledge this viewpoint, through immaturity or brainwashing or other means, then I promise you that when I run for Office, that I WILL use such spin and tactics to outlaw some of your vices and entertainment. Maybe THEN you, and whatever proportion of the American public that still clings to this Draconian Law, will wake up.....
Posted by Chromo 2 years ago
The thing is that a person who takes drugs...their actions not only influence what they go through but also other people. If you look into the local news, you will see that there are many reports of people who take drugs that commit crimes while high, drive and crash into other innocent people, abuse their children, and other acts that hurt mostly other innocent people. So its not that the government is dictating your actions, they are trying to protect other innocent citizens
No votes have been placed for this debate.