The Instigator
Logos
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
Araj
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points

Legalize narcotics

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,187 times Debate No: 440
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (26)

 

Logos

Con

People are inherently weak-willed, and drugs exploit that weakness. In this day in age, dangerously addictive drugs are easy and cheap to make (crack cocaine, for example), and in one moment of weakness a person can become a helpless addict, often for the rest of their lives.

Drugs have been shown in numerous studies to cause people to lose control of their actions. Drug addiction hijacks the body's survival instincts, making people do things they would never consider, all to get their next fix. Lives are torn apart, crime skyrockets, all because people have been ensnared by a drug pusher.

People have the right to decide what to do with their life and body, but drug abuse clearly presents a danger to all of society, and should therefore be outlawed.
Araj

Pro

First off, I agree with you completely. People are weak. One moment of weakness COULD herald the end of a life. One moment of weakness. Anywhere. But you must consider that drugs are not the only risk that exist. For example, one second during driving, one wrong move could be the end of everybody in a proceeding car accident. If you are going to maintain a ban on drugs, you might as well propose a ban on risk. After all, not all drug users die from addiction, or the drugs themselves. In fact, there are MANY drug users who end up to be very successful people, who have made the world a MUCH better place. Now imagine all the potential of those sitting behind bars?
People that would choose to partake in events such as these cannot be viewed as victims. They are risk takers. I will not condone their actions however, I view them to be foolish, myself. They made a choice, and they must live with it. Life is not about "replays" or "do-overs".
However, the side of enforcing a war on drugs DOES have its ups, does it not? After all, a fairly large chunk of violent and non-violent crimes are committed due to drug use. But you must ask yourself, would many of these crimes be committed if drugs were viewed in a different light? Perhaps the unfortunate individuals who so desperately were seeking help would have better methods to turn to than crime?
Debate Round No. 1
Logos

Con

Well played.

To say that a ban on risk is impractical is not the same as saying risk is desirable. For example, driving poses a significant risk to life and limb, yes, but it also produces a large number of benefits to our society as well. The trade off of those benefits (ease of travel, etc)is that some people may die. This example does not apply to drug use, however. There are no spillover benefits from heroin addiction. The risk to society is not mitigated by any positive outcomes. Therefore, the risk of people caving to temptation and becoming addicted is too great to ignore.

Drug users may still become successful people, true enough. But imagine a world where drug use was not illegal. Chances are, with no legal repercussions, the great drug addicts of the world would never have recovered, and would in all likelihood have died long before living out their full potential. People can free themselves of drug addiction on their own, but not everyone is so lucky. There has to be another body in the equation, someone always looking out for the people's interests, regardless of their situation.

All drug addicts are victims. It is true, people are responsible for their own lives, but no one is perfect, and no one can be expected to make perfect decisions all the time. Several studies, including one by the New York Bar Association, demonstrate a clear link between poverty and drug addiction. The study found that people who live in the poorest environments, the inner city poor, are far more likely to become drug users. People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, be it drugs, religion, or any other dangerous outlet.

This debate is not just about drug users. If drugs were legalized, the drug pushers who deliberately prey on weak, helpless, desperate individuals for profit would walk free. There would be no penalty for intentionally getting people to experiment with drugs, and no penalty for exploiting their desperation to make a quick buck.
Araj

Pro

"All drug addicts are victims. It is true, people are responsible for their own lives, but no one is perfect, and no one can be expected to make perfect decisions all the time. Several studies, including one by the New York Bar Association, demonstrate a clear link between poverty and drug addiction. The study found that people who live in the poorest environments, the inner city poor, are far more likely to become drug users. People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, be it drugs, religion, or any other dangerous outlet."

Everybody's a victim to something, that cannot be helped. And suggesting that we remove the lower class is simply not possible in a capitalistic society. As you stated though, People born in hopeless environments are always prone to any promise of escape, DRUGS, RELIGION, and MORE. Drugs are NEVER the only way out.

"This debate is not just about drug users. If drugs were legalized, the drug pushers who deliberately prey on weak, helpless, desperate individuals for profit would walk free. There would be no penalty for intentionally getting people to experiment with drugs, and no penalty for exploiting their desperation to make a quick buck."

You are eluding the truth! This debate IS about drug users. Should drugs become legal, the predatory drug pushers that you see today would not exist! If drugs were legal, you would see businesses selling drugs rather than a black market that exists below the blanket of society!

No penalty for experimenting with drugs? You do understand that drugs...are...dangerous and addictive? Drugs are bad, but that is not the debate. This debate is based on the freedom to choose for yourself, right OR wrong. That is the essence of America, just as true as the title of this debate itself states "Legalize Narcotics". What this boils down to is improving our government, and allowing America to grow as it was intended by our founding fathers.
Debate Round No. 2
Logos

Con

The idea is not to remove the lower class, simply ensure that the temptations they are subjected to do not pose such a large threat to themselves and others. In some cases, it may be helpful for the poor to have alternatives to turn to, but in this case, drugs POSE as an alternative to exploit people. They offer false hopes of comfort and solace, only to bleed desperate people dry and leave them broken. Religion may oppress people, but how many people steal a car for their church?

As for the absence of exploitation, ALL drug sale is exploitation. Just because it is a corporation selling the addictive product does not mean its not pure extortion.

America is about freedom. But at the center of this issue is whether or not the freedom to abuse drugs will affect the freedom of others. Those driven to drug abuse will steal, kill, and God knows what else to get their next fix. This effects society as a whole, not just the drug addict. And while it is not feasible to eliminate drug use, as long as just one life is protected, it is all worth it.
Araj

Pro

"The idea is not to remove the lower class, simply ensure that the temptations they are subjected to do not pose such a large threat to themselves and others. In some cases, it may be helpful for the poor to have alternatives to turn to, but in this case, drugs POSE as an alternative to exploit people. They offer false hopes of comfort and solace, only to bleed desperate people dry and leave them broken. Religion may oppress people, but how many people steal a car for their church?"

You manage to leave out the tales of success that have sprung from the lower class. While they are rare, they DO generate hope. This hope, and dreams of the future should be enough to push people towards making their lives better, rather than throwing it in the trash. If somebody does not view their life to be worth living, then the Darwin awards will be receiving plenty of new victims. People will take out rage in one way or another, blaming drugs for the violence and social deviance of the lower class is simply ignoring every other factor in their life, and every non drug related crime that has been committed. Especially those revolving around the lower class.

"As for the absence of exploitation, ALL drug sale is exploitation. Just because it is a corporation selling the addictive product does not mean its not pure extortion."

Because we ALL know that your average shady drug dealer abides by the laws set up by the government to prevent from exploitation...Companies do it, but they are at least regulated by law. And the regulation on companies is enough to outweigh the majority of ignorance that will come through the doors.

"America is about freedom. But at the center of this issue is whether or not the freedom to abuse drugs will affect the freedom of others. Those driven to drug abuse will steal, kill, and God knows what else to get their next fix. This effects society as a whole, not just the drug addict. And while it is not feasible to eliminate drug use, as long as just one life is protected, it is all worth it."

By your logic, yet again, you wish to eliminate risk. One life protected could easily be achieved by...oh..for the sake of argument..we will say...the manufacturing of chocolate easter bunnies. I'm sure that at least one life has been claimed by allergies to such a thing, would you suggest that we should ban ANYTHING that could claim even a single life?

And No. It is not feasible to eliminate drug use. Only a large portion of the violence caused by it can be eliminated, by the legalization of it. I should hope that you are not under the impression that, should drugs be legalized, hundreds upon thousands of people will feel the need to go test out heroin after a long day at the office.
Debate Round No. 3
Logos

Con

The simple fact is that drugs kill people, and they drive people to kill others. They may not cause all crime, but it is true that drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes. Prohibiting drug use prevents people from throwing their life away, but also keeps them from taking someone else's.

One cannot argue that drugs are a negative influence on society. They corrupt, kill, and generate profit for evil people. And if a government does not prohibit this activity, it is the same as endorsing it.

Government may limit free will, but it does so in the best interests of the people. People cannot always act in their best interests, and in this case there is clearly cause for government to intervene in people's choices, to prevent widespread harm.

Drugs cannot be eradicated, but they can be held at bay. Even if the problem can never be truly prevented, it is better to try to hold the evils of drug abuse at bay than to roll over and accept them.
Araj

Pro

"The simple fact is that drugs kill people, and they drive people to kill others. They may not cause all crime, but it is true that drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes. Prohibiting drug use prevents people from throwing their life away, but also keeps them from taking someone else's."

So you believe that you should decide what people do with their lives? Reminds me of a system that didn't work out too well, no?

Drugs are a major motivator in many violent crimes? You know what else is a major motivator in many violent crimes? Stress. Family. Work. Hell, without these, we would be set, right?

"One cannot argue that drugs are a negative influence on society. They corrupt, kill, and generate profit for evil people. And if a government does not prohibit this activity, it is the same as endorsing it."

This argument reminds me of the abstinance only policy that our government adopted a few years back. If I recall correctly, hasn't the number of teen pregnancies INCREASED since it went into effect? Not banning something isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Otherwise you could go along and say that our government encourages smoking! After all, theres no rules against it, besides the few limiting factors they have for public locations. So our government encourages anything it does not ban?

"Government may limit free will, but it does so in the best interests of the people. People cannot always act in their best interests, and in this case there is clearly cause for government to intervene in people's choices, to prevent widespread harm."

..*sigh*
It is in the peoples best interest to be able to live, rather than have their government live for them.

"Drugs cannot be eradicated, but they can be held at bay. Even if the problem can never be truly prevented, it is better to try to hold the evils of drug abuse at bay than to roll over and accept them."

True. Drugs CANNOT be eradicated. Held at bay? Not so much. The same addicts are going to continue to do drugs, and if the laws currently in effect remain as such, the circle of violence and drug use will continue. The only way to stop this chain, is to change the way the reaction spreads. This would be easiest achieved through a law. Or lack thereof for that matter. Perhaps the violence would stop if the pressure from the government was not so great to push people into such a corner. Legalized drugs does not mean that rehab centers would stop, in fact, they would probably see an increase in productivity! After all, with this action no longer being illegal, perhaps people would not be so opposed to going to rehab when they realized they had a problem. Perhaps the best way to help people, is to let them make their own choices.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
As a drug counselor, I would say that drug addiction inolves a lot more than just weakness. However, overall, I think he presented a better arguement. I do nor subscribe to this statement made in the comments: "they are idiots who should be punished and locked away" or "if you can make an argument FOR drugs and not be a druggie yourself then you are an extreme hypocrite, and if you are a druggie then you are biased. if you are someone who recovered from drugs then youre just a plain idiot, and that includes those recovering presently." Creed, you are way off base and comments like these are way out of line! You have no concept of addiction either intellectually or by experience.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
If one is to be consistent in thought, then I would think that anyone who agrees with an unqualified statement such as "Drugs are bad" would have to include legally manufactured and sold pharmaceuticals that are taken recreationally, as well as alcohol, caffiene, and nicotine, three of the most addictive substances around, under the umbrella of "badness." Thus, none of the above should be legal. If you are in this mode of thought and the above system was in place, good luck recieving treatment for mortal wounds or illnesses, not to mention getting a few painkillers the next time you might have oral surgery or something similar.
This puts the whole debate into an "all-or-nothing" context, as both sides of the argument have done away with subtleties. There are (many) bad drugs, some worse than others -- with this I am not disagreeing -- but there is as much difference between smoking marijuana and smoking crack as there is between drinking coffee and and drinking alcohol. But such differences are now out the door of discussion. So which way is more feasible for modern society? Everything illegal or everything legal?
I also think that many notions that people have about drugs are due to their current status of legal or illegal, but we can't forget that "legal" and "good" are not necessarily synonymous, and neither are "illegal" and "bad." We must also remember that "stupid people" do not have a monopoly on drug use -- contexts and circumstances differ substantially from person to person and time to time.
Personally, I would rather not have my morality forced on me by the government (or anyone else.) In the context of liberty, you can teach this or that, but people will eventually choose for themselves. What another person does to himself is not my concern until or unless they involve me directly, and vice-versa. Drugs of ALL kinds are in place, they are not going anywhere -- so why not get rid of the black market and use legal drug money for something good?
Posted by Creed-Diskenth 9 years ago
Creed-Diskenth
a challenge eh... why not? do you want to argue this same topic, with me taking over your position? if so, then sure.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
the debate is over before it started

the drug war is LOST, as was prohibition of Alcohol

Mexico is now RUN by drug gangs and the police are helpless

Ditto for Columbia, Bolivia and many other nations

legalize all drugs, plants and pharmacuticalize them

tax them , make them cheap , eliminate the criminal activity

yes stupid people will do drugs - SO WHAT?

Liberalism is based on that concept- people are too stupid to make their own decisions so the guvmint needs to make them for them

Of course, liberals consider THEMSELVES to be smart
Posted by willact723 9 years ago
willact723
Ugh. I can't vote yet. I thought the Con sealed the deal in Round 3, then I saw Round 4 and watched him implode and the Pro take it. But now I see it as a draw. So i won't vote. I'll come back tomorrow with paper and write down each point that is made and see if a) they follow logic and b) if they do follow logic, do they go to the end of the debate without being refuted. Good job!
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
This was fun, but next time I think I will defend my actual point of view.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
Well, as I said, I'm pursuing the opposite of my opinion for sport. Creed, are you up for a challenge?
Posted by Araj 9 years ago
Araj
I'm debating for the purpose of debating. Thats all really..
Posted by Creed-Diskenth 9 years ago
Creed-Diskenth
free will against common sense... i like it.

"any man that would give up a little liberty for a little securtiy will aquire neither, and lose both." Benjamin Franklin.

I find that while it is pointless to change an already existing system, i must agree that social darwinism would allow the weak willed to die drug addicts and the stronger more intelligent population to live on. Drugs would eventually be realized as a bad thing, assuming a small spark of intelligence resides in the masses.

I myself would never do drugs. But neither do i feel sympathetic to those who do use drugs. they are idiots who should be punished and locked away. I will never be okay with letting them degrade society as they please. They are and should be illegal.

Most drug users are repeat offenders for whom rehab is almost never enough. And for drug dealers to prey on the younger generation while they are most vulnerable is disgusting.

if you can make an argument FOR drugs and not be a druggie yourself then you are an extreme hypocrite, and if you are a druggie then you are biased. if you are someone who recovered from drugs then youre just a plain idiot, and that includes those recovering presently.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
Devil's advocate is pretty fun, I must say. I hate myself for making these arguments though.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logos 8 years ago
Logos
LogosArajTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Taz 9 years ago
Taz
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Walker 9 years ago
Walker
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BreadBreaker 9 years ago
BreadBreaker
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by im1ru12 9 years ago
im1ru12
LogosArajTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03