The Instigator
Greedav
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

LSD should be legalized with restrictions

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,471 times Debate No: 36803
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Greedav

Pro

Should lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) be legalized in the United States, with certain restrictions placed on it (i.e. a minimum possession age, maximum quantity, etc.)?

First round for acceptance only, please.
Debate Round No. 1
Greedav

Pro

Thank you to my opponent, Mikal, for accepting my debate.

CONTENTION 1: LSD is nonaddictive and has a low active dose/lethal dose ratio

LSD has effects that can be felt by ingesting around 30 micrograms of the substance. The lethal dose is averaged at around 200 micrograms/kilogram to 1 milligram/kilogram, equivilant to an AD/LD ratio of around 1:1000. In comparison, caffeine has a ratio of 1:100, while alcohol has a ratio of 1:10. There has never been any reports of human death from LSD overdose. There is general consensus in the medical community that LSD is nonaddictive.

CONTENTION 2: LSD has many positive effects and few negative effects.

LSD is known for its creative and spiritual effects. It is widely reported to create a heightened appreciation for art and music, and many of the most famous and influential artists and innovators were fond of the drug, crediting it with their success. Included are The Beatles, Bill Gates, Kary Mullis, and Steve Jobs. There is no evidence of long-term adverse reactions to LSD. Most complaints consist of "bad trips", which only last for the duration of the drug's effect.

CONTENTION 3: LSD has plausible medical uses.

LSD is considered useful for treating psychological disorders because it allows the user to accept himself or herself and to release repressed thoughts and feelings. LSD has also been used to reduce end-of-life anxiety in terminally ill cancer patients. Physiologically, LSD has shown promise in treating cluster headaches, widely considered to be the most painful condition humans can suffer. To alleviate victims of this pain would be not only medically, but morally, the right thing.

CONTENTION 4: Legalization and regulation would increase safety of users, as well as create revenue through taxation.

In today's illegal LSD trade, safety and security of users is almost nil. A buyer may be very young, or receive a dosage of unsafe levels, a dose contaminated by unsanitary or unsafe manufacturing equipment, or even a potentially lethal drug in lieu of LSD. Many police raids have found dealers passing Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB) as LSD. DOB has a much greater overdose potential than LSD, and can be potentially fatal. Legalization, and subsequent regulation of LSD would create safer doses, safer manufacturing environments, age restrictions, and practically eliminate the use of dangerous drugs as LSD substitutes.

Once again, thank you to Con for accepting the debate. I await your rebuttal.

Sources: http://rgable.files.wordpress.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://csp.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mikal

Con

I will start this round off with my opening case while offering rebuttals to some of my adversaries claims. Let us first look at what we are discussing "We should legalize LSD with restrictions".

Let us first take a look at what LSD(lysergic acid diethylamide)is composed of.

"LSD was first synthesized by Albert Hofmann in 1938 from ergotamine, a chemical derived by Arthur Stoll from ergot, a grain fungus that typically grows on rye. " - Britannica.com"

Some effects of LSD are as follows

*Increased blood pressure and heart rate
*Dizziness
*Loss of appetite
*Dry mouth
*Sweating
*Nausea
*Numbness
*Tremors

And these are just the simple effects, the main thing this drug aims to accomplish is related to what we can sense and feel. It often produces hallucinations and they can blend into what is reality for the user. Weird colors, shapes,and forms are often seen and more often than not, the user has no control over what they are doing.


Rebuttal 1

"LSD is nonaddictive and has a low active dose/lethal dose ratio"

My adversary claims that few deaths occur because of LSD overdoses which is true. That is not the main issue with the drug. The drug itself distorts perception and most of the time leaves the user with virtually no control over his body. Often interacting with hallucinations. Where as death from an overdose may be highly unlikely, we have to look at the chain effects of this. Think about how easy this drug would be to obtain if it was legalized. Right now it is actually not that easy to come by. If it turned into a sort of new pot, and got around the streets in the same way, accident rates from driving, or just sheer mishaps would inevitably increase. Where as pot leaves you sleepy and happy most of the time, this drug actually takes control of your sensory functions. This is also often used a date rape drug, and with it being commonly accessible I would be inclined to imagine that rape rates would increase especially around the ages of 18-22.

Rebuttal 2

"LSD has many positive effects and few negative effects."

This is just false. No other way to say that. These are just a few of the effects I pulled that this drug can have, while leaving out many others because of my character limit.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS

Dilated pupils
Higher or lower body temperature
Sweating or chills (“goose bumps”)
Loss of appetite
Sleeplessness
Dry mouth
Tremors

MENTAL EFFECTS

Delusions
Visual hallucinations
An artificial sense of euphoria or certainty
Distortion of one’s sense of time and identity
Impaired depth perception
Impaired time perception, distorted perception of the size and shape of objects, movements, color, sounds, touch and the user’s own body image
Severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings
Fear of losing control
Panic attacks
Flashbacks, or a recurrence of the LSD trip, often without warning long after taking LSD
Severe depression or psychosis

http://www.drugfreeworld.org...



Rebuttal 3

"LSD has plausible medical uses"

He claims that this helps treat physiological disorders, and helps cancer patients die in peace.

This is a horrid argument to support this drug. Just because it possibly could show signs to help people with physiological orders improve, there are a vast amount of other legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors that would offer the same function. Drugs that would not overflow into the population and serve as a date-rape drug. There is this other thing called therapy that tends to improve some patients with mental illness such as depression and anxiety. I make this argument within this context. Other drugs that are often prescribed by doctors may have bad effects and could shifted into recreational use as well. He is claiming that with proper restrictions , this would not be the case. The part that is not accounted for is the type of avenue LSD already has. Many rapist use this as a date rape drug and it is already channeling around in the party and rave scene commonly. Opening it up legally even with restrictions, will increase the circulation into the public by a high amount just because of the popularity the drug already has.

http://www.addictionsearch.com...


Rebuttal 4

" Legalization and regulation would increase safety of users, as well as create revenue through taxation."

This is the same argument for marijuana but just not logical in some ways. Basically he is saying it will produce revenue and we could tax it. Just because something could make money, does not make it a viable option to legalize.

I would be willing to bet if we legalized a show like a Roman Colosseum. Where people would go in and fight to the death and we could charge people pay per costs to view this, it would make money. Just because people like to see violence and action. It shows in movie ratings. It would arguably bring in millions possibly even billions of dollars, and be a way to clear out the prison system of rapist and convicts that are sapping our tax dollars.

This is a horrible idea though, just because of the legal and moral repercussions that would follow it. I could even argue this from a political perspective and show how much money it could possibly draw in. That still does not change the fact it is a bad idea. Just because something can make revenue does not mean it should be legalized.



Now brief Contentions

Contention 1 (Due to character limitation, I am going to summarize all my contentions into 1)

Legalizing this drug would make it more available to the public even including minors with only negative side effects.

This would almost be the same as alcohol and pot. When something is made legal even with restrictions it is more openly available to the public because of the different avenues in which you normally could not acquire it. This would be like the new "pot" or "beer". We all see how prevalent that is with teenagers, the only difference is this drug would actually promote rape and unwanted sex.

In one of his contentions my adversary says, that this drug is not addictive. Where as it may not be addictive as alcohol or tobacco, we have to look at the social addiction that will come from it. With it being more of a party drug, and with having more access to it, the possibility that this drug will find its way as a primary party drug is very high. So where as it may not be psychically addictive, it would often follow along with peer pressure and other things teens are not equipped to handle. We all know how that goes, "take this everyone else is". As i have shown this can lead to rape and many other issues especially with it being a party drug. Even going further into this, the drug itself may bear no physical addiction like tobacco as i mentioned, but can contain mental addictions instead. Even outside of teenagers, young adults could get addicted to the other worldly feeling this drug offers, and easily get hooked on it. Some studies even show that as many as 4/10 people can become mentally addicted to this drug

I could even make the stance that this could lead to secondary deaths from this drug. My adversary may say that only 1-10 deaths have ever occurred because of lsd, this is directly referring to an overdose. There is no way to gauge how many people have died in car accidents, or from just utter stupidity if they were on this. Even if it is minimal, the most logical assumption is to believe that if it is legalized, that number will increase due to a higher amount in circulation.

http://www.erowid.org...
http://www.drug-addiction-support.org...
http://rimrock.org...


In Closing

My adversary has to meet his BOP and show that legalizing this drug is a good idea. I have shown the negative effects of this drug and urge you for the sake of our children and health not to even consider this option. The negative effects far outweigh any good it may offer.
Debate Round No. 2
Greedav

Pro

Thank you for your well-thought-out rebuttals. I will rebut my opponent's contention and defend mine.

REBUTTAL 1:

My opponent makes the argument that LSD is often used as a date rape drug. Although it could, in theory, be used as a date rape drug, it is not the (for lack of a better word) ideal drug for the purpose. Simple alcohol can be used for this purpose, and in fact, remains the most common date rape drug in the world. Even in the case of LSD's legalization, alcohol remains the more effective date rape drug because it induces unconsciousness, whereas LSD's effects on the victim are more unpredictable. In addition, virtually any drug"legal or illegal"can be utilized as a date rape drug.

My opponent also mentions the possibility of "social addiction" to LSD. However, one can become addicted to any activity. Some common behavioral addictions include the following:

Gambling
Food
Sex
Pornography
Computer use
Video games
Work
Exercise
Religion
Shopping

Each of the above addictions are caused by the D2 dopamine receptor of the brain, the same receptor that causes tobacco, heroin, cocaine, and other addictions. Estimates show that around 90% of adults have at least one "mental addiction" in their lives. While it is true that LSD use can cause this kind of addiction, it is no more reason to outlaw it than to outlaw pornography, video games, or gambling.

In my opponent's third paragraph, he contends that LSD causes indirect deaths, such as car accidents and "utter stupidity". Once again, this is a trait not unique to LSD. Alcohol, sleeping medications, and even allergy medications such as Zyrtec can all impair motor skills and cognitive focus enough to cause death from automobile accidents or "utter stupidity".
While it would not eliminate all incidents, a ban from driving under the influence of LSD would be an obvious first step to reducing these kinds of accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.drugs.com...

DEFENSE OF CONTENTION 1:

My opponent argues that LSD would cause more accidents if legalized. Once again, I will refer to alcohol and other legal drugs as an analogy. It is undeniable that alcohol causes an incredibly high rate of death, not only from accidents, but from plain overdoses. Yet history will show us that prohibition doesn't work; it only decreases the safety of the substance in question. Any item, idea, or substance will cause negative effects"up to the point of death"if it becomes widespread. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to choose to use it, weighing the consequences and determining the best scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

DEFENSE OF CONTENTION 2:

I apologize to my opponent and to the audience for not being clear enough with my title. Allow me to rephrase it as "LSD has many positive long-term effects and few negative long-term effects.
Although my opponent's source is an obviously biased anti-drug site, I will defend my contention.

Short-term effects of LSD generally only last up to 12 hours. While these can be negative for some users, many feel positive feelings of peace and oneness with the universe. The content of the "trip" relies largely on the mindset of the user. Legalization would take away much of the taboo of the drug, resulting in more peaceful mindsets, and therefore, more peaceful trips.
In the long-term, effects of the drug are quite positive. They include increased creativity, new appreciation for life, and newfound spiritual connections.
A joint 2008 review by the Department of Clinical Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of Hannover Medical School, the Department of Clinical Pharmacology of Hannover Medical School, the Laboratory for Integrative Psychiatry, Addictions Division, of McLean Hospital, and Harvard Medical School was written on the pharmacology of LSD (I have linked to a PDF of the review in my sources). The review found that there is no scientific evidence that LSD has any harmful long-term effects on the brain or human body. Furthermore, the study found that LSD may have long lasting positive effects on personality and attitude.

http://www.maps.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

DEFENSE OF CONTENTION 3:

I invite my opponent to find an example of a drug that has less negative effects than LSD and an equal or greater potential for therapeutic use.
My opponent cites therapy as making therapeutic LSD impractical. However, therapy may not work for everyone, and few, if any, drugs show as much promise in easing anxiety as LSD.
My opponent does not attempt to rebut my argument of using LSD to treat cluster headaches. Cluster headaches are cyclical headaches that usually hit hard for several months before going into a period of few or no headaches for several months. As I have emphasized before, cluster headaches are widely considered the most painful condition known to man. They are considered more severe than natural childbirth, kidney stones, and non-anesthetized limb amputation. LSD has shown great promise in interrupting headache cycles and even aborting headaches. It would be unethical to deprive these people of a possible cure for their terrible pain. These are often sub-psychedelic doses, so there is no risk of a "bad trip".
LSD is also being experimented for use in victims of alcoholism. A single dose of LSD, in conjunction with therapy, has been shown to decrease alcohol use for several months. Therefore, LSD can be used to decrease the occurrence of alcohol-related injury or death, including drunk driving accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

DEFENSE OF CONTENTION 4:

My opponent focuses solely on my statement on taxation. Therefore, extend all other arguments.

IN CONCLUSION:

I have shown that LSD is far from a useless drug. Every substance has positive and negative traits, and the positive traits of LSD outweigh the negative.
Mikal

Con

Let us take a look at some of my adversaries contentions and rebuttals.


Rebuttal 1

"My opponent makes the argument that LSD is often used as a date rape drug. Although it could, in theory, be used as a date rape drug, it is not the (for lack of a better word) ideal drug for the purpose. Simple alcohol can be used for this purpose, and in fact, remains the most common date rape drug in the world"

This argument is filled with bad logic and fails to address the main issue at hand. He claims that alcohol is the most common date rape drug. This could be contested as being true at this present moment in time, or could be shown to be false. Let us accept that alcohol is the most common tool used at this moment. Why is this the case?

1. Because its legal
2. Because its cheap
3. Because its accessible( ties with 1)
4. Because of the effects

LSD is much harder to get a hold of than alcohol at this moment. Him stating that it is "not very ideal" is just wrong. When LSD is distilled correctly it is often colorless and odorless. It is also easier to target someone with than alcohol. Take a look at this example

A rapist and a blonde walk into a bar (just making a pun lol)

The rapist is immediately attracted to this girl. He noticed all of her friends are drinking, and he wants to try to find a way to rape her. He walks over to her and offers her a glass of alcohol. She says that she does not drink. Now let us look at what would happen if LSD were legal and the possibilities that could come from it.

(A): Knowing that she does not want alcohol would almost kill his ability to rape her in the most "common" was as my adversary has claimed. He could not spike her drink with vodka because it would be immediately noticeable due to the taste. So without having another way to rape her, this attempt is mostly shut down unless he wanted to forcibly rape her and risk going to jail easier.

(B): He could use LSD. This is colorless, odorless, and most of the time undetectable. Her friends are drinking and all he has to do is buy her a coke. He could slip this in her drink, and it would be virtually undetectable and then later in the night the loss of conscious would become apparent and he would most surely have his chance.

LSD is extremely ideal for raping people, and I have shown this in some of the sources that I cited. The reason that alcohol may surpass this as the most common tool for rape at this moment is because it is legal. It is extremely hard for most common people to go through the channels to get LSD.

Now imagine if my adversaries request is granted and we mass produce this. Think about how easily and accessible this drug would be. It would be as easy to get as alcohol. With it being this accessible and a more ideal tool for rape, is it not logical to assume the amount of rapes would go up? In fact I will guarantee that it will. If you could rape someone just by walking up to them and dropping a bit in their drink it would bring out a lot more attempts. Especially if it is sold in stores. Even with restrictions alcohol is more abused by people that are 16-22 than people whom are older. It would not be a far venture to say that the same thing will occur with LSD, in fact again I will guarantee that it will happen. If this were made legal as my adversary wishes, I am using this word a lot but would almost guarantee that it would replace alcohol as the number 1 date rape drug. There is no 100 percent way to show that I am correct, but using basic logic we can easily arrive at this conclusion with a strong foundation of facts to support it.

The difference in between choosing to take lsd and having it slid into your drink is either sex or rape. Even if we found out that legalizing this would increase the amount of rapes only by 1,000 or 2,000 a year, that is still a viable reason not to legalize it. Although I think it would be much higher.

http://www.narconon.org...



Rebuttal 2

"My opponent also mentions the possibility of "social addiction" to LSD. However, one can become addicted to any activity. Some common behavioral addictions include the following"

He then lists off a long line of reasons as to other things you can become addicted to. The issue is none of these are considered "drugs" and you remain in full control of your body at all times. Offering up a legal addiction to people, that will make them have hallucinations and lose control of their senses is far different than a overweight kid wanting to eat a "piece o pie". As I have also stated and also which he derailed, with it being accessible to kids in school it will surely be used at parties and become a party drug. When we look at my stance from the first rebuttal i offered, we can clearly see the repercussions of this and what will end up happening. This is a mental addiction that will tie into rape and hallucinogenics. That is a fact we can not accept.

Rebuttal 3

"In my opponent's third paragraph, he contends that LSD causes indirect deaths"

also

"My opponent argues that LSD would cause more accidents if legalized. Once again, I will refer to alcohol and other legal drugs as an analogy."


Could this happen with other drugs? It can and will, but maybe I should have worded this better than simply saying deaths and inserted accidents. Things such as rape as I have already mentioned.

Even outside of rape, lets just look again at how easy it is to spike someones drink with this. It is not like alcohol and can not be detected. Pretend a kid gets a hold of this and takes it to school because of how accessible it will be, with it being sold over the counter. He wants to play a joke and spikes his teachers drink, or his girlfriends drink, or a bullies drink. We can easily see the avenues that this will open up, if it is made as easily accessible as alcohol. Where there could be deaths from this and even if they are few and far between, the amount of people that will have to unwillingly take this drug is an unacceptable cost.


Rebuttal 4

"I apologize to my opponent and to the audience for not being clear enough with my title. Allow me to rephrase it as "LSD has many positive long-term effects and few negative long-term effects."

and

"I invite my opponent to find an example of a drug that has less negative effects than LSD and an equal or greater potential for therapeutic use"

I'm running out of character limits, but again we can clearly see through my previous arguments that it does offer negative effects. It all depends on how we define negative. I have shown the short term, but with it being accessible to the public when issues like rape or someone having their drink spiked, it will also lead to long term issues as well. If a woman is raped because of this drug and suffers from depression, it directly correlates to legalizing this drug. Ergo a negative effect.

As i have also stated, just because it can be a viable means for therapy is not a reason for legalization. Just therapy or pain killers in itself offer the same benefits, with out bringing the fall out that I have shown legalizing this drug will.


Rebuttal 4

"My opponent focuses solely on my statement on taxation. Therefore, extend all other arguments."

That is all I need to focus on. How easily it is to mass produce ties in directly to the amount of money you can make. He completely straw mans my argument, and does not address the fact that anything that could make money, is not always a viable reason for legalization. So this is where I can honestly say "extend all arguments", because of the red herring he offered up.

In Closing

All the reasons my opponent have offered up for legalization pale in comparison, to the negative effects that will come from LSD.

LSD will increase the rate of rapes that happen, find its way into young teenagers lives at a far more prevalent rate that it already has, and even serve as easy way to spike or get people to take this unwillingly. The negative effects are obvious and far outweigh any pros this drug may offer.


Debate Round No. 3
Greedav

Pro

Thank you.

REBUTTAL 1:

Alcohol is indeed legal, cheap, and accessible. However, it is the effects that make a date rape drug a date rape drug. Let's compare a few relevant effects of alcohol and LSD.

Alcohol:

Sleepiness
Slurred speech
Relaxation
Loss of consciousness

LSD:

Hallucinations
Restlessness
Anxiety

Let's take my opponent's scenario of a typical date rape plan.

"A rapist and a blonde walk into a bar (just making a pun lol)"

Let us assume that the girl doesn't drink, and that the rapist has access to LSD. We assume that the rapist slips the drug into the victim's drink without her noticing. However, LSD is an incredibly fragile molecule. It rarely even survives immersion in tap water, let alone a Coca-Cola or an alcoholic drink. The victim is unaffected.
For the sake of the argument, let us assume that the LSD actually survives in the drink. After around an hour, the victim starts having hallucinations. Of course, the victim doesn't know she's been drugged, so the entire experience is quite terrifying. She'd probably panic, scream, and try to get medical assistance. This, obviously, is not an ideal situation for rape.
LSD is a very poor choice for a date rape drug, and even if it is legalized, it will remain as such.

http://www.erowid.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

REBUTTAL 2:

He states that the addition potential of LSD is too high for legalization. He says that behavioral addictions are not "legal addictions". However, as I previously stated, the same part of the brain is affected with LSD addiction and other behavioral addictions. LSD addiction is different from heroin, alcohol, and nicotine addiction. It doesn't affect everyone, and is much weaker. There is also a large difference between "an overweight kid wanting to eat a 'piece o pie'" and a food addiction. LSD is addictive to some people in the same way as pornography and food is addictive to some people. Banning LSD for this reason is as ludicrous as banning pornography or video games.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

REBUTTAL 3:

I have already made the argument that spiking food or a drink with LSD is highly unlikely to work in my first rebuttal. Even if we assume that it could happen, the same argument could be used for practically any drug. Every drug in existence has negative effects, and people who are stupid enough to abuse it.

REBUTTAL 4:

Once again, he ignores my arguments about cluster headaches and alcoholism. He relies heavily on his date rape stance, which I have rebutted in my first rebuttal.
I find it ironic how he mentions painkillers as a viable alternative to LSD. Common prescription painkillers such as Vicodin and OxyContin are much more effective date rape drugs than LSD, as they cause drowsiness, unconsciousness, and can be easily slipped into a drink.
Once more, I must emphasize the importance of using LSD to treat cluster headaches. Even the strongest painkillers cannot do what LSD does for the victims of this horrible condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

REBUTTAL 5:

I think my opponent misunderstands my defense of this contention. In reference to my statement on taxation, he replied: "That's all I need to focus on" before accusing me of presenting a straw man argument. However, my argument has practically nothing to do with money or taxation. Allow me to restate it here.

"In today's illegal LSD trade, safety and security of users is almost nil. A buyer may be very young, or receive a dosage of unsafe levels, a dose contaminated by unsanitary or unsafe manufacturing equipment, or even a potentially lethal drug in lieu of LSD. Many police raids have found dealers passing Dimethoxybromoamphetamine (DOB) as LSD. DOB has a much greater overdose potential than LSD, and can be potentially fatal. Legalization, and subsequent regulation of LSD would create safer doses, safer manufacturing environments, age restrictions, and practically eliminate the use of dangerous drugs as LSD substitutes."

IN CONCLUSION:

I have defended a controversial drug against my opponent's attacks. I have also shown that it has many positive effects that would create a net gain for our society. LSD would enhance the art and spirituality of our nation, while helping many combat their devastating disorders. Please vote Pro!
Mikal

Con

Lets now examine some of adversaries claims.

Rebuttal 1

He compares the side effects of alcohol and LSD. As I have already claimed alcohol can be used a date rape drug, but is no where near convenient as LSD to use. As i have also shown and which he failed to contest(straw manned), this point, LSD is not a primary date rape drug at the moment because it is illegal. Once it is made illegal, the quantity in circulation will increase. As the amount in circulation increases, so will the # of rapes by association. If it was as available as alcohol at the this moment, it would easily contest alcohol as the number 1 means of rape. This is not the case at the moment because it is illegal and hard to come by. If you legalize it, all those standards go out the door and you will have a serious issue.

He states

"LSD is an incredibly fragile molecule. It rarely even survives immersion in tap water, let alone a Coca-Cola or an alcoholic drink. The victim is unaffected."

He claims that putting it into water will "Degrade it". This is the truth in a small portion but he also twists the facts revolving around this. While tap water has the potential to degrade the potency of the drug, it does not do so immediately. Even if it is diluted to an extreme amount, the potency of LSD itself is so powerful that the victim could and would still suffer from hallucinations. The argument that you can not spike a drink from this is illogical, as this is one of the primary means of using the drug for rape. I have also cited multiple sources to show that this is often used as a date rape drug and is extremely common. Let us pretend he is right, and say that if it touches tap water it loses all of its effects(which it does not). Any way anyone can find to administer to this to someone, would lead to my initial contention. Legalizing this drug will advance the number of rapes that occur.

Just pretend every argument he has made is logically sound(questionable), and it would produce only around 1,000 new rapes a year. As I have said earlier, this outcome is still unacceptable because people are still being raped and forced to take this drug unwillingly. The benefits do not match up to the negative effects this drug will bring if legalized.

http://www.tree.com...
http://oade.nd.edu...
http://oade.nd.edu...
http://www.toxassociates.com... <<<< ( Confirms this is used as a date rape drug, even offers tests for it
http://casapalmera.com...


Rebuttal 2

"LSD addiction is different from heroin, alcohol, and nicotine addiction. It doesn't affect everyone, and is much weaker"

"LSD is addictive to some people in the same way as pornography and food is addictive to some people. Banning LSD for this reason is as ludicrous as banning pornography or video games."


He fails again to address the point at hand. In every claim he has stated, none of these can effect another individual as directly as LSD. I can't take a video game and make someone watch it, and induce sleepiness to the point I could rape them. I can't make someone eat food to the point where it is possible to rape them unknowingly. Addictions that are personal, and addictions that can effect another person directly are a big difference.

Not the difference between directly and indirectly

Gambling you can effect your family indirectly because of bad choices with money.

With LSD you can effect people both directly and indirectly. One for the money issues that all the other topics he chose to list bring into account. If someone gets addicted they would spend money on it. The main issue however is how it can effect them directly. I can take this and use it as a means to rape someone and alter their sense of perception.

He is basically saying this

Video Games are mentally addictive
A drug that alters perception and causes hallucinations and be used as a date rape drug is mentally addictive
Since Video games are not banned we should not ban this drug.

Do I need to even point out, how flawed this line of thinking is. It is the same line of logic that people use to justify anything they want.

Sammy is a turtle
Turtles are Green
Therefore sammy is green.

I often use this as a way to pick out fallacies within logic. This is line of thinking, because it does not consider the other variables at play.


Rebuttal 3

"I have already made the argument that spiking food or a drink with LSD is highly unlikely to work in my first rebuttal."

And I have already showed why this is completely wrong. He claims it degrades in water, but does not address the fact at the speed of which it degrades. Someone can easily spike a drink with more than enough time to give the victim the effects of this drug, before it has time to dissolve or degrade in quantity. Also note as my sources in my first rebuttal show, the potency and power of this drug is so strong, that even if it degraded to a high degree. Say it was 15 minuets before the victim took a drink, they could still receive the negative effects this drug offers. It is extremely powerful.


Rebuttal 4

"Once again, he ignores my arguments about cluster headaches and alcoholism. He relies heavily on his date rape stance, which I have rebutted in my first rebuttal."

He means which he has failed to refute, I have already shown that him saying this is not a date rape drug is just flat wrong. I have given multiple sources to prove that, and even gave sites that test to see if you have been exposed to this after visiting a club.


This was about his argument for symptoms LSD cause. I gave a long list and do not feel like typing it out all over again. He continues to say these are not "negative effects". I will say this and end this, just to show the illogical nature of this statement.

If you drive drunk and can not see the road because of how the alcohol is effecting your blood, this is a negative effect of taking alcohol.

What then would we call someone who loses complete sensory control because of a drug? We can surely call this a negative effect.

Rebuttal 5

I did not misunderstand your argument. Everything that you listed, offers up reasons for taxing and mass producing this drug. Which is the underlying contention.

Example

He states this

"Legalization and regulation would increase safety of users, as well as create revenue through taxation."

"LSD would create safer doses, safer manufacturing environments, age restrictions, and practically eliminate the use of dangerous drugs as LSD substitutes."



He is saying by legally selling and taxing this drug, it would reduce the use of dangerous substitutes that could replace this drug. Again this is a failure to address the initial contention. Note the end of this contention. "Create revenue through taxation". Any variable that before that is irrelevant, because he is trying to prove by doing (x), it is a viable means to sell and tax this drug.

With all the negative effects that I have already demonstrated it is not an acceptable choice.

He is essentially saying this

(x)(x)(x) = selling and taxing this drug

No matter what variables he offers up for (x) values, it does not address the harm that this drug will cause. This is demonstrated all throughout my contentions.

I will note this. He is saying by legally selling this, it will reduce other drugs from coming into play. Make this argument for marijuana, and go from point A to point B. If we legalize marijuana it will stop other dangerous substances from being produced. Again this is such bad logic, because there is no way this has shown to be coherently true.

In Closing

My adversary has not met his BOP. I have shown all the negative effects of this drug, and how they far could out weight an positive effects that this drug may or could offer(which are few). For the Sake of our Children, Safety, and Health consider this drug should not be Legal.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
The sources say it is possible to be used as one, along with 3 or so saying explicitly that it is used as one. I would have posted like 10 more sources per argument but was limited to room of characters. I had to chose between showing the chemical make up of the drug, and the actual ability of it being used as a date rape drug. I could have pulled tons of articles and stories where it was used as so, but did not have the room to do so .Nor did i think it was needed, because i made it pretty self evident.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
Is it ironic that several of Mikal's sources explicitly state that LSD is not addictive (due to the rapid tolerance build-up addiction is impossible) and that it is not a date rape drug? I'll vote as soon as I can.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
I think Greedav responded pretty well to the same issues you're raising. LSD is probably one of the worst date-rape drugs, next to amphetamine.
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
Also you misunderstand date rape. You don't have to be out in public, and LSD will cause some sedation plus you are going to be extremely unaware of your surroundings. You're not going to in control.
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
Any drug causes unwanted side effects. Even medical ones.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
I'd like to see more from Mikal on how increased use of LSD among young people would be a bad thing, as it would presumably occur along with a simultaneous reduction in the consumption of other drugs. It would be the kids who already drink who would take LSD... so what would be the problem?

Also, date rape? We're going to need some more substantiation on that. It seems to me that a drug which doesn't sedate you, doesn't affect your memory, and in fact will make you rush for medical assistance the second you start experiencing the effects (if they are unexpected, of course. If I was at a bar with a guy and suddenly the walls started breathing I think I'd cause a commotion) would be a very poor date rape drug indeed.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
Oh, you're welcome.
Posted by Greedav 4 years ago
Greedav
No, I have not watched that video, but it does make quite a few similar points. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Posted by Wocambs 4 years ago
Wocambs
Sounds like you've watched NeuroSoup's video. If not:

I think it's pretty good.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
GreedavMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to con, his arguments were logical, and had scientific backing. Con also used more sources than pro. Good debate though, and pro almost had it.
Vote Placed by Nataliella 4 years ago
Nataliella
GreedavMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used Wikipedia, sources to Con for using more reliable sources. Arguments were good on both sides, but I feel Con had more logical arguments. Good job to both of you!
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
GreedavMikalTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I award conduct point to Con because Mikal argued more professionally. He used bold letters to put emphasis, as well as italic letters. I did not see this from Pro. It must also be mentioned that Con underlined certain terms. I congratulate Mikal for utilizing the rich text stylishly.