The Instigator
LocustBlotter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
murdokahn
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Psychedelic drugs are irrationally criminalised and should be made legal

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 2 votes the winner is...
murdokahn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,413 times Debate No: 35604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

LocustBlotter

Pro

Psychedelic drugs were demonised in the nineteen sixties when they became popular with the hippie youth. It was blown out of proportion by the media, causing harmful rumours to start and it being ultimately banned. Psychedelics have been used for thousands of years as a way to understand the subconscious mind and have profound spiritual experiences. In recent times, it has even been shown that psilocybin mushrooms may have positive effects for individuals suffering from PTSD. Yes, it can trigger negative reactions in schizophrenic individuals, but peanuts can trigger negative reactions in people with a peanut allergy. Do we make peanuts illegal?
murdokahn

Con

So since it is helpful under certain circumstances for a selected group of people, it should be legal for everyone to use? It should remain illegal. Mind-altering psychedelic drugs are dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. Do I want a mentally unstable person legally using a mind-altering substance? Do I want them using it while they are driving? Do I want them using it while they're hunting? Performing surgery on me? You didn't specify any limitations to it being legalized - so as of right now - a mentally insane, abusive person to take mind-altering drugs. Or a 5-year old kid, since there are no age limitations. Drugs available to anyone and everyone, legally, is your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
LocustBlotter

Pro

Many legal things are dangerous and should not be given to certain people. Take guns and alcohol for example. Also, I never stated that it should be given out freely. I do believe that it should be controlled and only given to mentally stable adults in reasonable amounts. There should obviously be rules and laws made to regulate responsible use of the drugs. However, why make it completely illegal? As long as it is being given to responsible, mentally stable adults without a criminal record, I do not understand the harm.
murdokahn

Con

Many legal things are dangerous and should not be given to certain people. Take guns and alcohol for example. Also, I never stated that it should be given out freely. I do believe that it should be controlled and only given to mentally stable adults in reasonable amounts. There should obviously be rules and laws made to regulate responsible use of the drugs. However, why make it completely illegal? As long as it is being given to responsible, mentally stable adults without a criminal record, I do not understand the harm.

You've molded your initial argument to fit my parameters, which is now far more rational than your initial argument.
Also, I never said it should be given out "freely" I said "available" which is not the same thing.

A vast majority of gun owners use the guns properly, as protection. The second amendment of the constitution grants people this right. Alcohol is safe in moderation. Psychedelic drugs are not safe in moderation.

This man cut a man murdered and cut the heart out of another mans chest after going on a bad shroom trip: http://perezhilton.com...

Do we really need people experimenting to see if they are psychotic when taking psychedelic drugs? It should not be legal. With making psychedelics legal, there will be an increased demand and availability of them. This will mean millions of more people experiencing bad trips and doing crazy, if not psychotic things against each other. I don't think that psychedelics should not exist, but they should remain in the hands of the elusive, small minority of the population to experiment with - it is safer for everyone this way.
Debate Round No. 2
LocustBlotter

Pro

Ah, I apoligise for the misunderstanding.

While I do agree that the possible effects can be quite harrowing, as in your example, it also has quite a lot of positive effects. It allows many individuals to have deep spiritual experiences and increased self awareness. Perhaps to avoid negative, psychotic reactions, individuals should be given a variety of psychological tests under the supervision of a medical psychiatrist to gain access to some sort of "green card". Rather than selling it in headshops for people to distribute and do as they like with the drugs, it could only be administered in a controlled medically supervised environment. Instead of being treated like any recreational drug, it could be treated like a form of therapy. This could greatly help individuals with identity disorders, PTSD, depression, amongst other possible ailments.
murdokahn

Con

Even if people went through psychological evaluations and it was placed in the right hands - it would be a lot of unnecessary screening just to make it legalized. It should be illegal unless proven otherwise - and given the positive benefits you've listed, I still believe the negatives far outweigh the positives. The cost of governmental screening, the increased use and availability of drugs, and the an inevitable increase of bad trips will follow along with that - even given the most careful screening and psychological evaluations. The most appropriate form of action is to have it stay illegal status, but possibly have a "prescription" if you will, for people that are willing to pay for the cost of their own psychological screening, background check, or whatever else is appropriate to mitigate the chances of the drug which could lead to that person to doing evil acts. This way it can be illegal to the general public, but legal for those specific few who have a prescription, and are willing to pay these costs and take on the risks.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
I would quite like to debate that with you, murdokahn. We clearly hold differing beliefs.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Yes, the provision of a controlled and safe area would be very intelligent; duly noted.
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
Or possibly "providing a controlled..." rather than "with"
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
I was thinking about debating that myself Wocambs, although not against you, as I feel there are acceptable reasons/regulations to allow it.

I like the wording of your proposition, though I feel it needs a small addition:

"Psychedelic drugs should be legally available through regulated outlets, with a controlled environment for use, to the adult population"
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Well, I disagree with the idea of limiting the legal availability of drugs to a tiny, affluent group of people. Your views make it difficult to formulate a resolution, but so too does your pedantic debating style. I have the feeling I would need the aid of a solicitor or two in writing my proposition for the debate.

How does: "Psychedelic drugs should be legally available through regulated outlets to the adult population" sound? That is to say that preventing someone from purchasing these drugs would require an order specific to them.
Posted by murdokahn 3 years ago
murdokahn
I'd actually agree with a legal regulated system for the specific few who meet the criteria and are willing to pay the costs.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
I would advocate for a legal, regulated system.
Posted by murdokahn 3 years ago
murdokahn
What would be the terms? I'd agree if the terms are polarizing enough to my own view.
Posted by Wocambs 3 years ago
Wocambs
Want to debate me on this, murdokahn?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
LocustBlottermurdokahnTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did far better. He seemed to understand what a debate is and was far more logical. He thoroughly beat Pro. Conduct is tied because neither was particularly bad. S/G goes to Con because I liked his sentence structure more than Pro's.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
LocustBlottermurdokahnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con provided a source, more than the Pro did. The con also refuted the Pro's argument well, even providing a scary but true argument in R2.