Legalise, tax and regulate ALL drugs?
Debate Rounds (3)
And does it really make sense anyway? The only person you're hurting is yourself, and sometimes it's even less dangerous than substences that ARE allowed.
You can end up in jail for tweaking your mind in a way that the state doesn't approve of? Does that really make sense? Especially when you take into account that you can use other stuff such as coffee etc.
Fact: More people are arrested from drugs than ALL VIOLANT CRIMES COMBINED? Wouldn't you rather the police focus on that instead?
In short my opinion is that what you do with your body is your business and the state meddeling with it is not only ineffective but also making things worse than it would have been if it were legal.
Secondly there's the economical side. In Georgia, USA they legalised weed for a period. And the money they gained reached a level where of which they were legally required to give money back to the people. It would in short be very profitable.
And then there's the police. You see in America people are arrested for using drugs at every 25 seconds or so and as I mentioned earlier more people are arrested for drugs than all violent crimes combined. Legalising it would allow the police force to save a tremendous amount of time and money and prisons would be less occupied. In fact as of 2013 HALF of all US prisoners were in prison because of drug offences. That tax money could be used on something else instead.
Drug money kept the global economy afloat during the financial crisis.
"When UN drug chief Antonio Maria Costa declared that $352bn of laundered drug cash was the only liquid capital available to some banks on the brink of collapse in 2008, the banking world feigned outrage. However, by 2012, one of America"s largest banks, Wachovia and one of the Britain"s largest, HSBC (founded amidst the opium trade) were forced to pay out record fines for failing to turn away money being laundered by Mexican drug cartels."
The next quote was taken from an International Commission containing between eight former heads of state and other world leaders. Such as former presidents from places such as Poland
"The continued expansion of the illicit trade despite growing enforcement efforts aimed at curtailing it demonstrates the futility of repressive prohibitions. Therefore in the longer term drug markets should be responsibly regulated by government authorities. Without legal regulation, control and enforcement the drug trade will remain in the hands of organized criminals. Alternately this is a choice between control in the hands of governments or gangsters, there is no third option in which drug markets can be made to disappear"
Also the criminalisation of drugs is also potentially driving people from mild drugs to strong drugs. How do I mean?
Well, marijuana is a lighter and safer drug so it's a lot easier to introduce. The drug lords have been more successful selling marijuana then let's say cocaine. So marijuana prices go up, they become harder to get and there's been an inside to grow more potent marijuana. People become driven towards heroin or cocaine instead. Now if the government had monopoly of it they wouldn't have any competition and they could sell these at whatever price they desired.
Now why was crack created? Well it was because cocaine was so expensive, it was drug prohibition that pushed it toward happening.
And it still is:
"Drug use keeps going up, and new drugs with psychoactive effects are being developed faster than states can regulate them. Illicit opium product has skyrocketed. Prices for heroin are falling. These outcomes set against the sheer cost of the so-called War on Drugs have convinced many that current tactics have failed..."
"The outlawing of drugs has been a tremendous failure and we need to move in the other direction"
Also the war on crime as had adverse consequences when arresting major cartel leaders by simply creating a power void that then begets more violence. If you can't argue against alcohol prohibition being a bad idea your chances of arguing effectively against drug prohibition fairly low indeed.
Prohibiting is not only futile but also increasing crime all whilst still failing to decrease drug use, in fact over a trillion dollars into the drug war all that had happen was that drug use had GONE UP. The drug market is in better hands with the government in which they can make sure things are happening responsibly and gain money in taxes. Especially when taking into account that drug use went down in places such as Portugal and the Netherlands when they legalised it.
And just imagine how much that would help places such as Mexico where there's been a bloody war with the cartel.
And for those that think that marijuana is the only drug that's safer than alcohol should also know that Psychedelic drugs are also safer than alcohol and quote: "As safe as playing soccer"
Yes I did: I suggested that one way we could do it like Sweden does it with their Alcohol. Sorry if I weren't clear enough about that. But that's not the only way you could do it (Duh).
Monopolising drugs is just one alternative, as long as you legalise it and turn it into a business (public stores etc) it works out. It doesn't matter if you own the stores or not, just like with how liquor shops work out even if their privately run business.
I don't understand why you would give me those death statistics, all you're doing is arguing for MY side. As I said earlier drug use went down in Portugal and the Netherlands when they legalised it and with that so did the amount of overdoses. So legalising it would lead to less deaths even WITHOUT counting the war on drugs. It would also be cheaper because :
A) You're going to be making money in taxes even if you're not selling it yourself.
B) You're not going to be spending as much money arresting people overall.
And no you don't have to turn America into a giant drug cartel nor do you have to guard pharmacies 24/7, Portugal didn't, the Netherlands didn't, and Sweden didn't (with their Alcohol policy).
And I see you're listing off some horrible things going on in the black market drug trade. Mobsters, machine guns etc. Yet again you're arguing for my side. You do realise that isn't how this site works right? Or maybe you didn't even read my argument at all, those things you listed are all the more reason to legalise it. Because as I said those gangsters would loose their business and then they would disappear from the streets. They would have no reason to attack cops in the first place, let alone afford machine guns to do so. When there's a free market people have thousands of importers and exporters, anyone can go into the business. But when it's illegal it suddenly becomes a lot harder for most people to go into the business. Because of our efforts to stop them it becomes very costly.
So the only people that can survive are those large meddling cartel kind of people, who have enough cash to put down to boot. This means they get a monopoly and now they can suddenly afford fleets of airplanes, boats and other sophisticated methods. Suddenly they have become so big that they can assemble their own little army and do driveby shootings on police officers with machine guns mounted to the backs of their trucks. Eventually they become so big that the police start fearing them and not the other way around (like in Mexico). If that happens it should be a strong indicator that you're doing things wrong and you need to change your tactics.
And then take into addition that cops are arresting local dealers, meaning that they are the only people bringing drugs into cities. All while keeping their prices up, what more could a monopolist want?
Famous economist Milton Friedman estimated in the 80s that prohibition causes on average 10.000 additional homicides a year. And since then it has been confirmed and reconfirmed. So what happened when states in the US started legalising pot?
Yes, only pot. Nothing else. Well this happened:
"Two or three years ago, a kilogram of marijuana was worth $60 to $90," a Mexican marijuana grower told NPR. "But now they're paying us $30 to $40 a kilo. It's a big difference. If the US continues to legalise pot, they'll run us into the ground."
The Drug Enforcement Administration said the cartels also struggle to match the quality of the pot grown in the US.
Not only that but it also lead to less pot related damage:
"The US Border Patrol reported a nearly 9 per cent decrease in marijuana seizures in 2015 from 2014. The agency conducted 12,535 marijuana seizures in 2015, down from 13,611 seizures in 2014, the data show."
And before you make the argument that maybe it only goes for Marijuana consider that this leads to the drug cartel focusing more on heavier drugs because of their marijuana losses. Drugs such as heroin and cocaine, in fact the US went into a full blown heroin epidemic. Heroin had taken marijuana's place and the same thing could be done with that drug and all other drugs.
So in conclusion legalising it would lead to:
Less deaths, more money, less spending, less damage, less crime, more responsible drug use, less underage deaths.... AND LESS DRUGS BEING TAKEN.
There is one argument against this though, one real argument. I'll reveal it at the end of the debate if you can't find one on your own.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.