The Instigator
ZekeGroth
Pro (for)
The Contender
MRAAJ
Con (against)

Legalize all drugs, tax, regulate them.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ZekeGroth has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 192 times Debate No: 106504
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

ZekeGroth

Pro

Our government is overreaching it's power on drugs. It is incapable of handling drugs. No matter how hard the government presses, drug usage will always be widespread and eminent. Because of that, our government is wasting it's time and money on this "drug war." We waste billions of dollars on something unstoppable and quite honestly, someone's personal issue, not the governments. People being arrested, imprisoned, all of the money on the DEA - it's your money too, don't forget. So here's my proposal. We legalize all drugs, we regulate them, we tax them. People can only buy so much of a certain drug, but they can get it. This not only saves the government and YOU money. It frees the market and helps the economy. People's sentences are stripped away. Many businesses open up. More people are employed. We put a tax on the drugs as well, so the government is now making money from doing this. Obviously meth and heroin aren't readily or easily available, but they're available. They're regulated. And they're highly taxed. This reduces overdose and death rates because of drugs. What about bath salts and prescription drugs? People take these drugs as an alternative because they can't get their hands on actual drugs. They make bath salts out of common items found at the store. Legalizing actual drugs fixes this problem. In order to maintain a free market society, reduce government spending by billions, reduce OUR taxes, create employment everywhere, we must legalize all drugs, regulate, and tax them.
MRAAJ

Con

I gracefully accept this challenge. Although I'm in the middle, i will challenge this notion and discuss it further

Issues I'd like to cover involve criminal organisations, the prison system in relation to petty arrests, the fine line between medical use and recreational use, and the effects of prohibition in the past.

Personal disclaimer: Whilst at uni, i smoked weed otherwise i don't do drugs. Before I was behind the whole legalise weed bandwagon, but it really did f' up mental health, there's even links to schizophrenia in some users.

In short, all drugs (certain drugs) won't ever be legalised fully due to the aforementioned factors, which we can go in depth on.

Opponent takes the floor first of course.
Debate Round No. 1
ZekeGroth

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I will start with the first topic you mentioned you'd like covered: criminal organizations. By this, I can only believe you mean drug cartels.

Yes, the drug cartel is a problem costing citizen's lives. One effect of legalizing drugs and regulating them will have is the opening of shops across all of America. This is going to cut drugs sold on the streets by an enormous degree, therefore limiting the power of the drug cartel as far less smuggling will be happening and more importing and planting will (add tariffs and the government makes money from that as well.) We must recognize the difference between drug trafficking and drug retailing.

With your mentioning of petty arrests, I can assume you agree with me at least to a degree that arrests over drug possession are unnecessary. If not, I'll deliver my point. Someone is arrested in America every 25 seconds for simply drug possession which also goes to show that the government obviously can't fully get rid of drugs because people will always have them in one way or another (either mainstream or alternatives which might be incredibly harmful like bath salts or just simple ones like salvia which should be a mint normally.) If the government doesn't work for getting rid of something and it's something that doesn't inflict upon the rights of others, it shouldn't be a crime. No victim, no crime.

I think medical use and recreational use are both okay. Sometimes recreational use even helps with medical issues like anxiety, depression, or insomnia. That also goes along with that there is a fine line because medical marijuana isn't always made available for people who could genuinely use it and make it more effective than another prescription drug.

The act of prohibition in the past mainly includes alcohol. First of all I think this path of prohibition with drugs is taking the same path as the act with alcohol. A) Certain states aren't enforcing it, though it is a federal law. B) Alcohol prohibition ended slowly by starting with medical use which is prevalent with medical marijuana and certain drugs like LSD have also proved to be medically advantageous. C) Thousands of people died from drinking tainted liquor whilst prohibition was in effect. This relates to the issue of alternatives being used. In 2011, 6.5 million people were sent to the ER due to abuse of bath salts. Remember pop star Prince? He died because he used heroin laced with a drug 10,000 times as powerful as morphine (morphine is incredibly strong, given to people who are likely to be amputated; imagine 10,000 times that.) If we legalize and regulate drugs, then people won't be pushed into the place taking these drugs, whether alternatives like bath salts, or incredibly powerful and uncontrolled heroin. They will be able to have access to the drugs that they want to use in a regulated and reasonable matter.

I'm once again going to go back to the "no victim, no crime" statement from before to conclude my argument for this round. It isn't the government's business what drugs anyone decides to take and what they choose to do with their bodies and lives. Only in the case, that someone's genuine rights are being inflicted upon, is it the government's business. You have rights over your autonomy and should be allowed to use those rights as you choose.

https://elevationshealth.com... (money argument from before)
http://www.drugpolicy.org...
http://www.history.com...
https://consumer.healthday.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
MRAAJ

Con

Hello I will know provide my statement. This round will solely be based on my opinion so I am authentic in my approach, the next round I'll introduce data if necessary. I will be approaching this from a psychological standpoint.

I'll tackle this head on before discussing factors, if we legalise all drugs, their would be no drug free area. Where there is drugs, there are addicts (not all obviously), where there are addicts, there is toxicity. Toxicity destroys lives, friendships, and families.

Here is Why all drugs will never be legalised:

1a: Criminal Organisations: The prison system would be non existent without drug cartels, and w/out a prison system society will descend into chaos, law & order would go titsup. Conversely, there is a overcrowding crisis in most prisons, so more criminals are being released. Also cartels would kill governors who legalise drugs, they re too powerful. it is fair to say they go and in hand, esp. when some gov' officials are corrupt themselves.

1b: Petty Arrests: (Corrupt) police need their commission so they pick up petty arrests, this directly leads to previous point. Another reason all drugs won't be legalised.

2: Medical Use Only: In cases of necessity, certain drugs should be provided to people based on their condition, for example in some places in Europe, there is a Heroin clinic for recovering addicts. Don't legalise every drug for recreational use, society will not benefit, too many deaths and rises in mental health issues will occur.

3:Prohibition: When alcohol was banned, people produced bootlegged alcohol, a similar thing can be said if all drugs were taxed. Criminal organisations would still want to compete, they'd just lower the prices, which means lowering quality, eg like look at Black Mamba and other types of Weed syndicates, all lethal because criminal manufacturers are constantly adapting to regulations. Poor folk will not spend on taxed drugs when they can get it from a known dealer.

Again i'm in the middle, but these points highlight exactly why all drugs will never be legalised, esp. considering corruption.
Debate Round No. 2
ZekeGroth

Pro

First of all, I'd like more explanation on how the prison system won't exist without drug cartels, because I'm unclear on how. But, obviously drug cartels will exist but their power in both numbers and fear will decrease immensely due to the opening of markets nationwide (not to mention, they can now legally enter this market and conquer it.) We would release all non violent drug crime offenders from prison and this would help society in ways I'll reference back to later. The main issue is that there is no victim in recreational drug use. And as long as an offender does not harm a separate citizen's rights, they should be allowed to take part in what they want to.

By legalizing drugs, we allow officers to deal with actual issues and put them to their full potential and work. This increases productivity and decreases violent crime. If certain officers need petty drug arrests to make their pay checks for them, they aren't using themselves and putting themselves to their full potential.

If people want to harm their bodies by using drugs, that is not the government's right to restrict. Also, there have been studies showing that certain drugs help people with mental health issues that you don't get prescribed medical marijuana or anything other for. To start, marijuana often helps people deal with depression, anxiety, etc. LSD and "magic mushrooms" have risen immensely lately as legitimately curing depression, helping clear egotism, and becoming more self aware in general. Ecstasy is showing to be useful for treating anxiety and PTSD. Some of these cases can, yes, be prescribed, but not always the case. In the end, if someone just wants to use them and have fun with them, then the government can't restrict that.

For prohibition, you're comparing the ban of alcohol manufacturing and sales (which is how it is with drugs) to the taxation of drugs which is an insufficient argument. I compared both bans and how both are the same in the way that when there is a ban, people create alternatives that others die from (my example of Prince with laced heroin as well as the example of bath salts being used as an alternative.) The example doesn't stay the same with taxation. You claim that people will not pay for taxed drugs when they can get it cheaper on the streets. Then why aren't people buying alcohol off the streets because you should know alcohol is also taxed. They will buy from stores because then it is legal.

I'm going to reference to my argument in round 1 about the economy as it was never brought up. Let's look at this on a small scale: a town. In this town, a prison releases many prisoners arrested for non-violent drug crimes and their charges are cleared. A shop opens nearby, selling recreational drugs, and needs employees. It offers a deal for maybe 25% or 50% off as an employee discount - very generous. Many recently released criminals apply and some are hired. They are now helping the market and economy. The others either apply at another opening recreational drug shop or another job as their charges have been cleared, once again adding to the market, economy, and helping reduce poverty. This is why legalizing, regulating, and taxing drugs will help the economy and open the market immensely.

Finally, I'll extend my argument of "No victim, no crime." As long as a citizen does not violate another citizen's rights, it's not the government's duty to enforce laws against it.
MRAAJ

Con

Hello Zeke

Forgive me but one no longer wishes to discuss this debate, for I'm not really interested in the legal aspects of drugs at the moment, I'm just invested in the socio-psychological aspects.

Once again apologies, i hope you can accept a tie/void, and perhaps we could start a different in the future. For example you say 'no victim, no crime', however I disagree to extent, again because of issues such as addiction.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Thoughtmoldbreak 1 week ago
Thoughtmoldbreak
Hard to say. Though, I imagine that given enough time that things would be probably exactly the same or similar to what they are now. Legality does not affect those who are not persuaded by the opinions of others.
Posted by ZekeGroth 1 week ago
ZekeGroth
MRAAJ, I am incredibly libertarian but used to be pretty liberal as well and can definitely sympathize with most views.
Posted by MRAAJ 1 week ago
MRAAJ
Also im central left (uk liberal), so we share similar experiences and views i hope.
Posted by ZekeGroth 1 week ago
ZekeGroth
My bad, LogicalPen, I will make sure to cite everything next round.
Posted by LogicalPen 1 week ago
LogicalPen
Sorry for the double.
Posted by LogicalPen 1 week ago
LogicalPen
I agree for the most part. Since drugs are illegal, there's a national black market for them, and obviously, that's weakening our economy. I'm tired of the altruistic and pretentious behaviour of the liberals. However, you need to cite your sources. "We waste billions of dollars on something unstoppable and quite honestly, someone's personal issue, not the governments", kind of stretching statement and without proof you won't get as many votes. I can also tell that you're speaking subjectively, not objectively.
Posted by LogicalPen 1 week ago
LogicalPen
I agree for the most part. Since drugs are illegal, there's a national black market for them, and obviously, that's weakening our economy. I'm tired of the altruistic and pretentious behaviour of the liberals. However, you need to cite your sources. "We waste billions of dollars on something unstoppable and quite honestly, someone's personal issue, not the governments", kind of stretching statement and without proof you won't get as many votes. I can also tell that you're speaking subjectively, not objectively.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.