The Instigator
Mass_Debator69
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GrimlyF
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Legalise, tax and regulate ALL drugs?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 231 times Debate No: 96297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Mass_Debator69

Pro

Since the war on drugs has started the drug use hasn't gone down, if anything it has made drugs MORE dangerous because they're being sold illegally without regulations. Around 50% of street cocaine has a "Flesh eating" property to it. Now if that was sold in a government store it could be regulated so that you could only sell "good" cocaine and people could be informed of all the dangers before they buy it. And when it's illegall the black market gains monopoly of it and organised crime gains a lot of power. That's what happened when alcohol was bannned.

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.
GrimlyF

Con

It is obvious that you know very little about the drug trade."Sometimes it is even less dangerous than substances that ARE allowed"A short, true tale.There was a "designer drug" called I believe Pink Bull that was sold legally on the internet.It was directly responsible for the deaths of 11 young people. I expect they just wanted to "tweak"their minds but you know kids, wi th peer pressure they always need more. Drugs kill 10 of thousands every year.They hospitalise 100s of thousands.They ruin the lives of millions of ordinary people who don't touch them.It will be interesting to see you justify your position, especially how you will tax and regulate the drug trade.
Debate Round No. 1
Mass_Debator69

Pro

But fighting it hasn't made drug use go down. So if we instead claimed monopoly of them and made sure everyone knows the dangers beforehand that less deaths will follow. Especially seeing as how people no longer will die because of a bad batch of street drugs. That's what happened when alcohol was banned, people died because the drinks were being in made in peoples bathtubs. And if we had monopoly of it we could put age restrictions on it and remove competitive influence because there is no longer pressure to perform better than the competition. In Sweden all alcohol is sold by the government which means we could remove all alcohol advertising, because everyone will be buying alcohol from the same place no matter what.

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"

-Kyle Kulinski

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"
GrimlyF

Con

(These are the latest figures I can get from googling.Here in England we have the Office of National Statistics but the U.S.A. doesn't seem to have an equivalent).2009:44000 deaths from illegal drug use.2010-2015 illegal drug overdoses fatal or not increase by 66% in New York alone.In 2014 there were,nationwide,slightly under 1,000,000 illegal drug overdoses resulting in hospitalisation.A drug called Opoid,(I've not heard of it before) in 2014 was the cause of death in 14,000 people.You are wrong in thinking I'm saying drugs are bad.My point is that legal or illegal all these people HAD drugs.They O,D'd because the drugs were available not because they were illegal. "You give me no hint as to how you intend to "monopolise" the drug trade.Perhaps you intend to turn a few 1,000,000 acres of the U.S.A. into poppy fields and hemp farms plus a few Hi-Tec synthetic/designer drug factories?. "In 2001 the Brits and U.S. invaded Afghanistan. .Afghanistan su pplies 25% of the worlds illegal drugs which fund the Taliban and Al-Queda.Afer a while the co-alition commander was asked why they weren't burning the poppy fields.He replied "It would mean too much hardship to the farmers".So 3 tines a year the taliban either take the poppy juice from the farms or attack the warehouses and convoys when they must.So much for the "War on drugs". `Assuming you don't want to turn the U.S.into a giant drug cartel your options are limited.You can go to the Afghani Taliban and Al-Queda and perhaps make a trade deal.Or perhaps Miguel Gallardo in Mexico who had 22 police cadets taken out and machine gunned,decapitated and mutilated.No?.How about the Columbian Herman Villa?He's currently hiding out in Spain as he is wanted in connection to 300 homicides.YOU CAN NOT REGULATE WHAT YOU CAN NOT CONTROL AND YOU CANNOT CONTROL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN. "Distribution.Again you give no clue as to how you will sell your wares.Obviously this will be the province of the F.D.A.You can't use doctors surgeries as they charge for visits and this will at least double the street price of drugs.Pharmacies are out of the question as they would have to be heavily guarded 24hrs a day. "I am going to stop here because this debate is about legalising,taxing and regulating drugs and you have written nothing regarding how you will achieve ANY of these things.
Debate Round No. 2
Mass_Debator69

Pro

Let's just start here with this: "you have written nothing regarding how you will achieve ANY of these things".

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.
And
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.
GrimlyF

Con

You are both a liar and a cheat.I am going to answer on Sweden,Portugal and The Netherlands.SWEDEN.(Google :How to buy alcohol in Sweden).Sweden has never,ever banned alcohol.You can still go to pubs,clubs and restaurants to drink.provided they served food. What they did was limit the places you could buy a drink.When you buy a drink in any of these places it must be consumed on the premises.You cannot leave a place with half a bottle of scotch in your pocket.That is illegal.THATS YOUR 1ST LIE.YOUR 2ND LIE CONCERNSNON-ALCOHOLIC OFF-LICENCES RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.After imposing the limit the Swedes set up a chain of off-licences partly to sell non-alcoholic drink.Exept they didn't.These off-liicences are called Systembolaget.Far from selling alcohol free beers and wine even the so-called alcohol free drinks had point 5% alcohol by volume.The ordinary beer and wine had up to 31/2 % alcohol by volume.So no ban,no alcohol free booze.PORTUGAL.(GOOGLE : hOW DID PORTUGAL LAGALISE DRUGS).The first thing it says is" Portugal has never legalised drugs".(Except weed).DRUGS ARE STILL ILLEGAL.LIE 3.NETHERLANDS.(GOOGLE:DUTCH DRUG POLICY-hOLLAND.COM).Scroll down this site until you come to a line of italics which says "The netherlands has never,ever legalised drugs.(not even weed).LIE 4.Why liar and cheat?.Because you cannot possibly have used the 'net without seeing the facts above.As the truth wouldn't help you simply fudged everything int a pile of gibberish.Iwill post this then turn off notifications.I am done with you.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Mass_Debator69 1 month ago
Mass_Debator69
Portugal decriminalised all drug use 2001. And drug use went down.
I don't know how you do research but I feel like you shouldn't have missed that.

And I never claimed Sweden banned alcohol, I mean I apologise if my grammar and spelling made it hard to understand but I kinda feel like you didn't read my argument.

I could go on but I feel like you're trying to troll me here.
Posted by Mass_Debator69 1 month ago
Mass_Debator69
It's "Mass-Debator" actually, gee. Get your head out the gutter, don't make it so sexual.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 month ago
GrimlyF
Masturbater.Your third entry is such complete drivel I almost decided not to waste my time.Almost.I've known what your Great Idea is since your 2nd entry.Of course you have no clue how to implement it do you?.Sweden?Netherlands?Portugal?.You make me laugh out loud.As I am busy I will rebut your arguement in 24hrs. This will give you ample time to do the right thing and Forfeit.
No votes have been placed for this debate.