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

Legalize and regulate recreational drug market?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 72338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Insight supporting my side of the argument sourced mostly from LEAP, and personal first person perspective into poverty, addiction, buying and selling, and, worst case scenario. Including a good friend who overdosed and died at the age of 20, another user whose a bored narcissist in his own world....and me, back in school overcoming the negative cesspool that is my mind and resisting unhealthy use through self regulation - awareness, and, passion for my education.

1st round: Introduction/background and opening argument or question by the opposition


I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Drugs can be compared to Alcohol. Drugs can be a way of having fun. In my case, I will be explaining the neo-conservative stances such as how drugs are slowing down America, and how making a free market for drugs will eventually destroy an already torn up society we live in
Debate Round No. 1


The only aspect of American society I can see that is torn would be the peace between the prevailing left/right wing political game due to an observable, perpetuating animosity which stems from narrow mindedness and zealously reinforcing partisan perception.

Drugs slowing down America though? Maybe if the ill stricken, unmotivated addictions wasn't a minority then you'd have a point. There seems to be more than enough upstanding people in enough places to offer opportunity to the greater majority who are determined, while the problem is confined to families and certain areas in poverty. Even so, drug abuse is never the root culprit but a symptomatic manifestation of deeper angst that mustn't ever be undermined. Even if drugs were inaccessible to these people they'll just pacify themselves with fast food, video games and porn while working minimum wage.

So like obesity, mental angst, video game and porn addictions I don't see why drug possession and use must be a criminal issue vs strictly a health issue like other maladaptive/self destructive behaviors. As an attempt to prevent people from using them? Sound's like morale policy, and police are frankly not supposed to enforce morality....making it a personal/family issue and none of their business.

No specific sources here beyond my own insight through trial and error enlightenment, and being close to these kind of people getting by with low income. From smoking too much weed, to alcoholism to seeing a friend withdrawing dope sick, another dying and his aunt and mom dying from alcoholism and prescription abuse. Pulled through half of my own problems as well....


Ariesx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Whatever happened last round we can hopefully continuing where we left.
Go contender.


Sorry for the forfeit. I would like to counter my opponent's arguments with these two points.

1. The resolution says Legalize and regulate recreational drug market. Regulation is not happening. If history has taught us anything in through prohibition through the war on drugs, if people cannot access it, drug cartels will find a way to deliver it. So, I would request that my opponent state what kind of regulation will be required, and what will happen if the business breaks the regulation. We also notice that when drugs enter the "legalized world", they engage in the free market which basically means businesses compete for profit. I would argue that businesses competing for profit in the "drug world" will be a major threat to people. For example, new research has indicated that legal marijuana draws up for homeless people.While no state agency records how many homeless people were drawn by legal weed, officials at homeless centers say the influx they are seeing is straining their ability to meet the needs of the increasing population.

"The older ones are coming for medical (marijuana), the younger ones are coming just because it's legal," said Brett Van Sickle, director of Denver's Salvation Army Crossroads Shelter, which has more than doubled its staff to accommodate the increase.

The shelter did an informal survey of the roughly 500 new out-of-towners who stayed there between July and September and found as many as 30 percent had relocated for pot, he said.
Also, in addition to my free market argument, candies are starting to get mixed with marijuana. This has freaked out local parents who are scared of their kids getting marijuana. Free market experiments(Hashey(Hershey Rip Off)) have been attracting kids and Adults.

2. THC- THC is basically what produces the high effect. The more THC you have in the product, the more likely you will be able get a better high. This leads into my free market examples. If businesses are competing for costumers, than the most logical thing for a business owner to do is put more THC in his product.

3. Depression- Marijuana can lead to depression. Doctors have found out that their is a direct link between marijuana and depression. If you do pot, you are twice more likely to get depressed than a smoker.

In conclusion, I think marijuana is bad for our society, and I think that we have enough things as Americans to worry about. Good Luck to my opponent, and sorry for the forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3


First I should make it clear this is not about marijuana alone but all scheduled drugs. I would love to discuss marijuana in a separate debate :)

The black market in this nation will eventually perish. Since the end of alcohol prohibition there is only a black market for booze where it is banned: indigenous Alaska. Like prohibition in the early 20th century, it is not working and indigenous Alaska faces possibly the worst social problems with alcohol in the country, including the effects of consuming alcohol containing cosmetic products.

There is no denying that substance abuse often has negative effects on somebody's well being. There is no denying that the manipulative, lazy mentalities of the abusers takes a toll on their relationships and all dimensions of their life and being. Since president Nixon's war on drugs started there are still roughly as many abusers as ever. Why though? Simply because people have free will and nothing will ever condemn that.

Which brings me to something more harmful to society than recreational drug use, and that is the war on drugs. With free will there will be a demand, and with demand there are always many willing to risk their freedom and life to supply because it can be very lucrative. Drug use isn't going anywhere and there's not enough man power and resources to stop it

So why is the war on drugs more harmful?
Because there is no rightful possession of product, and violence associated with distribution and lifestyle prevails and ravages in areas of poverty.
Children are sometimes enticed into that life with real, compelling offers.
Users sometimes die from variations in purity and adultrants (notoriously with ecstasy/molly and, how my friend died - heroin).
Felony drug charges restrict people from attaining good employment opportunities which compels them to get back on their trap game.
Additionally, schedule 1 psychedelics have tremendous potential in psychotherapy and positively life changing mind expansion which is indispensable.

Legalization will allow the government to implement regulations on purity/quality and age restrictions. This makes usage safer and more difficult for underage users to obtain. And I say again, the black market will perish like it did with alcohol in favor of the quality and safety of buying from a drug store.

If we must spend $100bil a year on combating the effects of substance abuse it is much more sensible to execute harm reduction strategies and offer real help to those with a problem. Without a criminal record or scrutiny they will have more hope and opportunities to look forward to.

With all of this said it is time we have changes of mind and stand for this change.

Sources of information reinforcing my stance will be in the comments section


My opponent has put the resolution(Legalize the recreational drug market).
I have to still ask my opponent what does he mean about recreational drugs because there could be many definitions.

1. My opponent argues that the black market will eventually perish. My opponent argues prohibition and free will, and the war on drugs,
Prohibition-I understand what my opponent is trying to argue, but he is comparing two different drugs with two different effects. Here is what we got when we legalized alcohol. Alcohol-Related Deaths:
Nearly 88,009 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

In 2013, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities accounted for 10,076 deaths (30.8 percent of overall driving fatalities).11

Economic Burden:
In 2006, alcohol misuse problems cost the United States $223.5 billion.12

Almost three-quarters of the total cost of alcohol misuse is related to binge drinking.12

Global Burden:
In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.0 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption.13

Alcohol contributes to over 200 diseases and injury-related health conditions, most notably alcohol dependence, liver cirrhosis, cancers, and injuries.14 In 2012, 5.1 percent of the burden of disease and injury worldwide (139 million disability-adjusted life years) was attributable to alcohol consumption.13

Globally, alcohol misuse is the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability; among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first.15

Family Consequences:
More than 10 percent of U.S. children live with a parent with alcohol problems, according to a 2012 study.16
This is what we get. We had to pay 223 billion dollars because of all these deaths. Alcohol is the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability. 88,009 people died on alcohol making it the third most preventable cause of death.

2. The Free Will Argument- I understand that people have free will. I understand that people don't have to put their seat belt on in their car because they have free will. I understand that people don't have to wear a safety helmet when their bike riding because of free will. I understand that people might want to steal because they have free will. I understand that people might not want to wear protective gear when their riding a roller coaster. My opponent does not deny the negative effects of marijuana. But, he has been won over by the fact that people are still going to want it. That is why government's job is to be the better person and say no. That is why government has to tell people to put their seat belt on, to put their helmet on, to not steal. It is the same case with drugs. We cannot let our society be abused by things that are going to hold them back from their best selves. We cannot let them be drugged up by the THC. We cannot let them get depressed, and get dependent on drugs,

3. The War on Drugs- I know about the spending, and the people that are put in jail for doing drugs. But I think that we are not looking at the bigger picture. Just ask these two questions. Why are children getting enticed into compelling offers? Why are people getting into drugs?
1. Children are getting into these compelling offers because their environment is poor, and their upbringing is bad. I agree we need to stop spending on a war against drugs, and put that money into improving the environments of the drugged out neighborhoods.
2. People usually get into drugs when their young and feel like daring. Understandable. That is why we must improve the environments of neighborhoods and make sure that these neighborhoods offer opportunity.
My opponent also mentions the 100 billion dollars we are spending on the drug war. We spent
Debate Round No. 4


Alcohol can certainly be disastrous when certain people drink too much. A team of scientists in the UK spent two years analyzing the effects of 20 different drugs and ranked them by "mean harm". Alcohol was ranked 5th due to health complications and withdraw from abuse, as well as behavioral changes while intoxicated. Other rankings include tobacco at 9th, cannabis at 11th, LSD at 14th, MDMA at 18th and heroin claiming 1st place.
As I said before though prohibition has proven to make drugs more dangerous due to cheaper adultrants and substitutes used for "cutting" the product (my friend and many others have died using heroin cut with fentanyl). Families of street thugs and intricately organized cartels have moved into many places, sometimes ravaging the streets with their hypervigilant supply and demand game. Never forget speakeasies and the Al Capone gang, folks.

My opponent argues that it's imperative that a government tells its people no when we make choices which are harmful to ourselves. Not only is this a cost ineffective approach to harm reduction but encourages a demeanor generally unsuited to work in society and overall poor prospects (thug life, street style, acting ghetto ect).
What my opponent suggesting is that culturally sanctioned morality should be enforced.

Ex DEA agent Neill Franklin explains the cause and effect of the war on drugs very well. I've been busy and I'm running out of time so I leave you with this.


My opponent continues to argue the drug war and enormous spending on the drug war. Though he has dropped what I thought should happen. I said in round 4 "Children are getting into these compelling offers because their environment is poor, and their upbringing is bad. I agree we need to stop spending on a war against drugs, and put that money into improving the environments of the drugged out neighborhoods.
2. People usually get into drugs when their young and feel like daring. Understandable. That is why we must improve the environments of neighborhoods and make sure that these neighborhoods offer opportunity.
My opponent has dropped this argument, therefore he either agrees with me or forgot to respond. My opponent argued Al Capone. Lets take an inside loom at Al Capone. He had a bad childhood. He was poor. He wanted opportunity. He couldn't find it anywhere. He got into the alcohol business. In my opponent's video, it outlined how alcohol consumption declined after prohibition. But that is also when the US started to practice socialism to get out of the great depression. They improved neighborhoods and tried to open opportunity to everybody.
My opponent argues that the my arguments are just ways for culturally sanctioned morality. First of all, I'd say its a compliment that my opponent thinks it is at least a moral cause. Second of all, it works. In china 70 million people did drugs. China was in a state of poverty and unrest. When there is poverty there will be narcotics to occupy the desperate people. When Mao Zedong came to power he wiped out the drug problem and made people start working again to build a superpower. My opponent has given examples of countries that have benefited from making drugs legal. But none of them became as powerful as China. China has the second largest economy and the number one culture. We are America. We can do the same.
In conclusion, I would urge you to vote for con. If you have been won over by the pros arguments than I urge you to consider th
1:I used to support legalizing drugs, until I found out that my brother's friends were tempting him to get into drugs. I told my brother no, and gave him examples of things that could happen to him. I realized how selfish I had become. I wanted to have drugs legalized for the 99% of Americans that I did not know. I would have drugs illegal for my own family. I would have drugs illegal for my future children. Think about the ones you care about. Think about your brother or sister, or child that can be influenced by drugs. You would want them to live the best life possible. You would not want them to be destroyed by the increasing amount of THC in marijuana. You would want the rich capitalists to get into the drug business and start profiting off of drug addicts. You would not want them to profit off your brother.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by srsly 3 years ago
Recreational drugs: a substance with psychoactive properties ingested for pleasurable effects. Including but not limited to lifting mood, increasing mental sharpness, greater appreciation and awareness of everything, abstract thought and creativity, higher libido, being more productive, sense of confidence, desirable tactile changes/enhancements and positively life changing experiences
Posted by srsly 3 years ago
Happy 21st birthday to the contender Ariesx. Enjoy your drinks and stay safe
Posted by srsly 3 years ago
Mostly schedule 1
The psychedelics
The empathogens
ect ect
Posted by StalinIncarnate 3 years ago
There's a lot of Recereational Drugs out there, most being legal already. You need to specify.
No votes have been placed for this debate.