The Instigator
jmlandf
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
liberty
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Recreational Drugs should be Legalized in the United States of America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
liberty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,095 times Debate No: 5244
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

jmlandf

Pro

Go First I will counter.
liberty

Con

I negate: Recreational drugs should not be legalized on the United States of America



Recreational Drugs: An often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

Legalized: To give legal validity or sanction to

Should: Moral obligation



Contention 1: Life and Health of Users.

Lets be realistic, the vast majority of drugs are harmful or even deadly and extremely addictive. Legalizing drugs will put more people in the temptation of trying various substances that they are likely to get addicted to, causing health problems or death.

Contention 2: Criminal Activity will be Increased

Many drugs cause problems in a person's judgement. This may cause drug users to commit crimes while under the influence of the drug. As if drunk driving isn't enough for the police to deal with we would now have driving under the influence of hard hallucinogenic drugs that are far more dangerous Accident rates would rise sky high and many young people would die. Also people under the influence of drugs may murder, rape or rob without meaning to do so because their judgement
is effected by the drugs. That way, otherwise decent people will spend time in jail, thus ruining their lives, not to mention the victims who might die, get raped or robbed etc. All this, because of a small mistake and without even breaking the law since drugs would be legal.

Contention 3: Kids and Teens Will Have Easier Access to Drugs

Just like cigarettes and alcohol, kids will have access to drugs through neighbourhood kiosks, mini marts etc. The usage of such substances may cause permanent damage to a growing child or teen's brain and health in general.

Contention 4: Morality

My opponent and I, are Christians and our religion is firmly against the use of drugs. Despite that, my opponent proposes to make an immoral action legal and I respond that the law needs to be close to the morality not opposite to it.

Contention 5: Second Hand Smoking

Second hand smoking is something we are aware of as a problem from smoking cigarettes. Imagine the damage of second hand smoking from hash, marijuana, or crack… Public health would be seriously affected and the problems it would cause to non-smokers who annihilate other's smoke would be huge.

"I reserve the right to make new argument in the rest of the debate's Rounds

Thank you very much, back to you jmlandf

Alex "liberty
Debate Round No. 1
jmlandf

Pro

PROS REBUTTAL My Rebuttal to CONS Contentions
Contention 1: Life and Health of Users.
I agree with my opponent that the vast majority of drugs are harmful and even deadly HOWEVER we can not have our government criminalize acts solely because they are harmful to the user. By using my opponents logic the government should also criminalize over eating, lack of exercise, alcohol, excessive caffeine use, and tobacco products to name a few acts that are harmful to the user. Notice the acts are not harmful or deadly to the non-user just the user? The government must protect everyone liberty even if some choose to use their liberty to destroy their body.

Contention 2: Criminal Activity will be Increased
First 1) There is no evidence to support criminal activity will increase, this is speculation. We can not criminalize acts because they might cause other criminal acts to occur. Using this logic the government would have to make not working illegal because it might motivate the individual refusing to work to steal. Higher criminal activity has been associated with lower education. Shall we require all individuals to go to school and work in an effort to reduce crime?
Secondly 2) There is significant evidence that crime would decrease. The cost of drugs would be extremely cheap. The main motivation in criminal activity caused by drugs is due to the high cost to support the addiction.
Thirdly 3)If recreational drugs were legal there would still be regulation similar to alcohol regulation. If users drive they will be prosecuted. If individuals go to work under the influence they will likely get fired. Further most drugs do not affect your motor skills, inhibitions, or judgement nearly as much as alcohol, which is legal.

Contention 3: Kids and Teens Will Have Easier Access to Drugs
We should have regulations to prevent under age use. Parents should ultimately be responsible for raising their children not the government. If parents are unable to follow the laws their young children will be taken away. If adolescent and teen children continue to use drugs or alcohol, just like now they should be disciplined civilly such as juvenile detention or required to complete drug and alcohol treatment programs. Using this logic we should outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and most television programs. No doubt all of these may be harmful to children and should all be properly regulated but not criminalized for adult use.

Contention 4: Morality as Christian
I believe the laws of this secular government should only criminalize acts that DIRECTLY violate another individuals liberty. I would encourage you to self regulate yourself above what the law allows. If we regulate our morality when we are the majority we will set a precedence for future generations. The future generations morality may be Muslim. The Muslim faith may believe that the secular government should regulate women's clothing and women's rights, because that is what is moral to them. We as Christians have morals that can not be regulated. We have a belief in Christ as the Messiah, which we can not have our secular government force upon the masses. We believe we should not fornicate. Shall we have the government criminalize the act of fornication? Further as Christians we are free from the law and live by grace. Christ did not call us to form secular governments to regulate and criminalize sin but rather to live our lives by example. Note: I believe murder, theft, and abortion violate anothers liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Contention 5: Second Hand Smoking
Second hand smoke has mostly been eradicated. The only second hand smoke that an individual would be susceptible to would be if they choose to eat, dine, or socialize at a privately owned business that allowed smoking. This should be completely up to the private business owners. No one is require to patronize these establishments. Many states have passed public smoking bans, even in privately owned establishments. There would still be regulation of recreational drug use.

PROS ARGUMENT (My Argument)

Definition of Liberty
1.a.The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b.The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c.The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2.Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3.A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Contention 1 Laws must protect others Liberty
The Government of the United States main purpose for the citizens is to protect Liberty. Liberty must be protected for all, even when individuals use their Liberty to destroy themselves.

I will add more but I'm running out of time!!!!!!
liberty

Con


A.)MY CONTENTIONS

Contention 1:
"I agree with my opponent that the vast majority of drugs are harmful and even deadly HOWEVER we can not have our government criminalize acts solely because they are harmful to the user.

>>>"The government must protect everyone[s] liberty even if some choose to use their liberty to destroy their body."

-We are aware that most drugs are extremely addictive. Even today, without drug legalization, many times young people do drugs just for fun and believe that it is just a one time thing and all of a sudden they realise that they are hooked on them and can't stop! Thus their lives are destroyed. This what my opponent is debating for. Many people will die or "destroy their body" without wanting this to happen to them.

"By using my opponents logic the government should also criminalize over eating, lack of exercise, alcohol, excessive caffeine use, and tobacco products to name a few acts that are harmful to the user."

-The examples my opponent brings up are not nearly as harmful or addictive hard drugs and young people are less likely to get hooked on them just because they tried to fit in by trying them. These habits are in fact based on personal decision, while being hooked on drugs many times isn't.

Contention 2: Criminal Activity will be Increased
"There is no evidence to support criminal activity will increase, this is speculation"

- False it is not speculation, it is common logic. If we have increased criminal activity and accidents, due to alcohol, we most certainly have the same problem in a more massive scale due to drugs, because many drugs influence the brain more than alcohol.

"We can not criminalize acts because they might cause other criminal acts to occur"

- Universalize my opponent's claim, than we shouldn't ban stabbing people just because it might lead to murder or attempt of it.

"Using this logic the government would have to make not working illegal because it might motivate the individual refusing to work to steal. Higher criminal activity has been associated with lower education. Shall we require all individuals to go to school and work in an effort to reduce crime?"

- These examples are in fact a lot closer to speculation than fact. Certainly, I agree that these people are more likely to commit crimes, but we can't make not working illegal because usually it is not a choice not to work and even if the government passed such a law, it would be very difficult to get everyone to work. Not going to school is already illegal (!!!) and an increased criminal activity of the non-educated was one of the many reasons that the law was passed. Also, these people (non-educated and unemployed) are a lot less likely to violate the law than a wild teenager driving under the influence of drugs.

"There is significant evidence that crime would decrease. The cost of drugs would be extremely cheap. The main motivation in criminal activity caused by drugs is due to the high cost to support the addiction."

-Yes criminal activity RELATED TO DRUGS would decrease, because the act of selling drugs would no longer be illegal, but other illegal acts that would increase!!!

By universalising my opponent's claim, we should legalise robbery because crime would decrease, due to that thievery would no longer be considered a crime.

"If recreational drugs were legal there would still be regulation similar to [the] alcohol regulation. If users drive they will be prosecuted. If individuals go to work under the influence they will likely get fired.

- True, these regulations would and already do exist (with alcohol), but even with alcohol I do not see them working despite the millions beings spent on educating and warning drivers, thousands of people die every month due to driving under the influence of alcohol, I don't imagine that changing in the case of drugs.

"Further most drugs do not affect your motor skills, inhibitions, or judgement nearly as much as alcohol, which is legal."

- False. Most drugs DO affect your driving skills (although a few don't, but those are not the ones in question here), we should protect the lives, of the innocent victims of potential car accidents no matter how many or few they are.

Contention 3: Kids and Teens Will Have Easier Access to Drugs
"We should have regulations to prevent under age use…required to complete drug and alcohol treatment programs."

- We've seen these regulations before, except with cigarettes and alcohol. The statistics show that 1/3 of children today, try their first cigarette or consume normal quantities of alcohol when under the age of 14! So due to the above, I am definite that these regulations don't work. So let's at least keep it at cigarettes rather than hard drugs! The problems with teens smoking is already been proved to be more than we can handle.
"Using this logic we should outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and most television programs. No doubt all of these may be harmful to children and should all be properly regulated but not criminalized for adult use."

-I agree. If parents can't control their children we should ban these in order to protect society and the growing and sensitive bodies of kids, but we can't. This is because people would react. At least these aren't nearly as harmful as hard drugs and teens are somewhat safe from more serious health problems caused from hard drugs. If drugs were allowed, we wouldn't be able to ban them. So legalizing drugs is irreversible, we cannot recall our decision, because just like alcohol, people would react, so risking the lives of children is a dangerous risk because if we fail to control ourselves and our children we cannot recall our decision if we find that we have made a mistake.

Contention 4: Morality
My opponent states that:
"I believe the laws of this secular government should only criminalize acts that DIRECTLY violate another individual's liberty."

- Taking drugs violates another individual's liberty because the user may in certain situations (as I explained in Round 1) commit a crime or acts of violence while under the influence of drugs. So drug legalization is in fact: Criminalizing an act that violates another individual's liberty.

My opponent also strays from the topic by going on and on about his beliefs. Well, I disagree with him because I have different beliefs and values, but I kindly remind him (although I began the discussion about morals) that the topic is drug legalization, not our conservative or libertarian beliefs and morals.

Contention 5:
"Second hand smoke has mostly been eradicated. … There would still be regulation of recreational drug use."

- True, laws have been set in the case of cigarettes, but many people still violate them, as they probably would with crack or hash! So kids and pregnant women, would, at some point almost inevitably annihilate the smoke with disastrous results for their health. For example you might be sitting with your kids and pregnant wife at the bus stop while a man smoking crack sits by you, you would be forced to annihilate his smoke and so would your family even if it is just a few breaths it would definitely be very bad for the embryo. Or you may be at a restaurant with your family and in the same place someone is (legally or illegally) enjoying a good smoke of marijuana at another table without you noticing.

B.)HIS CONTENTION:
Contention 1: Laws must protect others Liberty
My opponent made a very similar point in his rebuttal of my 1st contention (the one marked with the >>>)
So my answer is the same.
Also, I explained, in my 2nd contention that, many times people, are robbed of their right to life due to that people under the influence of drugs, are more likely to commit crimes due to the effect that certain drugs have on the brain. So is this what my opponent is proposing as real liberty, when killing of innocents is very likely to increase?
Debate Round No. 2
jmlandf

Pro

Unfortunately my opponents logic is flawed. Every example he offers the possible harm caused to others as justification to criminalize the act. The act of using drugs itself doesn't cause the harm, just the "possible" effects. I say criminalize the acts against others....Criminalize murder, blowing second hand smoke in someone's face, drug use by minors, but don't criminalize adult regulated drug use. We can regulate this use but not criminalize this use.

My opponent asks if I am debating for all the harmful effects of drug use, I am not. There is a Natural Law or God's Law, if you subscribe. This law is undeniable whatever you want to call it. This is the law of natural consequences. If I drink excessively all day the natural consequence of over drinking will happen. Does man need to step in and make more strict laws than what Nature/GOD has already provided? Both the man who denies the self evident law of Nature/GOD by drinking to much is just as foolish as the man who doesn't think the Natural law is enough. My opponent is the man who believes Nature is not enough punishment for the drunkard/drug addict. My opponent believes that we should also step in and put the drug addict in jail in addition to the Natural Law. I believe this is contrary to LOGIC, many religions including CHRISTIANITY, and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It is important to note that I'm not suggesting you have to believe in a God or Creator to understand this. I'm simply suggesting that this law exist and is self evident. It can not be denied. An atheist could easily replace God or Creator with Nature or Natural Law. I believe the founders of the USofA understood "Creator" as this. The founders are referring to this natural, self-evident law. This law gives Rights naturally and man doesn't need to regulate them. Regulating them is against Nature/God. The only responsibility of man is to protect every ones Liberty so as to allow Nature/Gods law to govern. Murder is a denial of Liberty and should be regulated. Smoking pot in your basement is NOT. Gods/Natures Law doesn't need man to step in and compliment it, The Law is perfectly capable of carrying out its own discipline. Smoke Crack and the consequences will come, touch a hot stove and feel the pain. Should man make it illegal to burn yourself?

I will agree with my opponent on any act that takes away another persons Liberties directly should be in violation of the law and disciplined accordingly. What about the man sitting in his house all day smoking Crack. How has that man violated anothers Liberty directly? How can we justify making that act criminal and punishable by law? We can't unless we start making stuff about about how he MIGHT do this or that.

I agree with my opponent on every negative side effect of drugs and that they may even help cause crime but this is no argument on denying liberty and freedom for all. What right is given us that we should take away anothers right to do what they want with their body if it doesn't violate or freedoms?
liberty

Con



In Round 3 my opponent keeps repeating his sole Round 2 contention of liberty

"Unfortunately my opponent's logic is flawed. Every example he offers the possible harm caused to others as justification to criminalize the act. The act of using drugs itself doesn't cause the harm, just the "possible" effects. I say criminalize the acts against others....Criminalize murder, blowing second hand smoke in someone's face, drug use by minors, but don't criminalize adult regulated drug use. We can regulate this use but not criminalize this use."

- My opponent clearly misses the point of all these arguments and therefore fails to refute them. The point is that even if these acts are criminalised, people are extremely likely to violate the law. We can predict this because it is already happening in the case of cigarettes and alcohol. Here are some examples: 1. although teenagers aren't allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes they still do so. 2. Murder is already banned, but people still murder people while under the influence of alcohol 3. Smoking in non-smoking areas is illegal, but people still smoke there. From the above we can conclude that the laws that ban second hand smoking, driving and socialising under the influence, underage drinking etc are not effective. This means that if we legalise drugs we would be in a similar situation were people would violate the law thinking that it doesn't damage anybody else, costing the lives and health of innocents. This ladies and gentlemen is what I am refuting, not the man who obeys the potential law stays and home and ruins his health at his own expense.

"My opponent asks if I am debating for all the harmful effects of drug use, I am not."

- I agree that he is not intentionally doing so, but the harmful effects of drugs (as I explained above) are INEVITABLE, once the law is passed, since people will most likely violate the law, just as they do today. So, indirectly my opponent is supporting all the harmful effects explained in my Round 1 argument, because they are directly liked with drug legalization.

My opponent goes on and on about a natural law, as likes to call it. I agree with his position although I find it fairly irrelevant, because it is not the point we disagree on. I would like to clarify once more that my objection to drug legalization lies in the fact that certain people (teenagers who might get hooked on drugs, innocent drivers, those who annihilate second hand smoke etc) other than the users, will almost inevitably be effected in a negative way if drug legalization were to happen.

He also, says that providing extra laws banning drugs, in addition to "natural law" is against Christianity. This is completely false because the vast majority churches and church bodies (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant), are against drug legalization.

My opponent continues his argument by quoting the Declaration of Independence and for the third or forth time, makes the same point about liberty and human rights. He once again fails to understand that the potential users, who want to destroy themselves, are not the ones in question; it's the innocents and teenagers as I explained above. He completely ignores that people's liberty (that he so passionately states that he is supporting) will INEVITABLY be violated. How do we know this? It's already happening (with alcohol and cigarettes)! My opponent repeats himself by saying that there will be regulations to prevent the above. My answer is the same. For the final time, THESE REGULATIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE, they don't work with alcohol and it is almost definite that this won't change in the case of drugs.

"I will agree with my opponent on any act that takes away another persons Liberties directly should be in violation of the law and disciplined accordingly. What about the man sitting in his house all day smoking Crack. How has that man violated anothers Liberty directly? How can we justify making that act criminal and punishable by law? We can't unless we start making stuff about how he MIGHT do this or that."

I remind my opponent that I do not object to this. Logic tells that many people will not just do drugs in their house but will do so outside of it too, potentially harming others due to the effect on their brain and/or second hand smoking. The effects on innocents are not things that MIGHT happen, they WILL, It may happen in a massive scale, it may happen in a small one, but that does not matter, even if one person dies because of some sicko addicted to drugs that is already a huge loss, and if we allow it we will go against human rights that my opponent thinks he is supporting.

Finally keep the following in mind:

First of all, my opponent failed to properly refute most of my Round 1 contentions, because he didn't PROVE that second hand smoking, underage drug use, driving and socialising under the influence etc, wouldn't occur and even if I hadn't completely proved that such things WOULD occur (which I did), we could not afford to take such a risk and put innocents in danger, just for a few who want to do drugs and kill themselves, because as I said if we are mistaken we cannot recall our decision. Therefore extend these arguments.

My opponent failed to refute any of my Round 3 points in his own Round 3 argument, so extend them too. Additionally, my opponent only provided one weak contention, that he keeps repeating [liberty] that basically doesn't stand, because innocent people's liberty will be violated by people who are under the influence of drugs, as compared to four strong and ill refuted contentions of my own. Also, I will have debated one more round than my opponent when the debate is over, because he didn't post a round 1 argument that is why I have an advantage no matter what the case.

Therefore I negate,

Thank you very much.

Back to you, jmlandf

Alex ("liberty")
Debate Round No. 3
jmlandf

Pro

I must tell you, I used to side on the opposing view. Am I a traitor?.....No I've discovered and understand the philosophy of Liberty and Logic. Liberty allows me to rationalize my personal views of anti-drug with my political views of tolerance. You see ultimately this debate is philosophically and logically about liberty, so I can't stop discussing it. Logically you have to ask "What are the responsibilities and limits of mankind governing mankind? I believe a government that takes on the responsibility and rights of Liberty is the most logical system. There are certainly other systems like the USofA's current system, communism or a police state. So to make things simple there are two forms of political thought either Liberty or something else. Liberty lets drugs be legal, while something else criminalizes the use. To help illustrate the true meaning and philosophy of Liberty I would like to give a quote from Benjamin Franklin, a man that fully understood its definition and application, something we all have forgotten.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

My Opponent says "Many drugs cause problems in a person's judgement. This may cause drug users to commit crimes while under the influence of the drug."

If you will notice my opponent would like to purchase a little safety by giving up some liberty. He says MAY cause. This is the first violation of Liberty....Supposed Safety. This doesn't sound so bad until other people start using the government to provide them safety from "possible" not "actual" acts and everything just spirals out of control.

"What luck for the rulers that men do not think." Adolf Hitler
"The masses are far more likely to believe a big lie than several small ones."Adolf Hitler

My Opponent says "He completely ignores that people's liberty....will INEVITABLY be violated. How do we know this? It's already happening (with alcohol and cigarettes)!" ........"The effects on innocents are not things that MIGHT happen, they WILL,...."

At this point in the debate there is no MAY about it now it is INEVITABLY and WILL happen. The only thing that opposes liberty is fear. Attempts to criminalize and regulate drugs and alcohol has repeatedly failed as my opponent has admitted with alcohol and cigarettes. This is the only way to trick people into being overly regulated; lie to them about the inevitable disaster you are saving them from. Even if you are giving them a little safety, if it cost you liberty you deserve neither. The only thing a government can do is criminalize and enforce the actual acts against Liberty. For Example if someone gets drunk, don't do anything but if they rape someone then prosecute them. This is the same argument with guns.... If someone has a Gun, don't do anything but if they kill someone prosecute them. All attempts at regulating choices simply fail, as my opponent has already accepted with tobacco and alcohol.

MY OPPONENT SAYS "Not going to school is already illegal (!!!) and an increased criminal activity of the non-educated was one of the many reasons that the law was passed."....... "we should ban these[Cigarettes and Alcohol] in order to protect society and the growing and sensitive bodies of kids, but we can't. This is because people would react."

This is the final breath of liberty, as my opponent has accepted, when we regulate recreational drugs we now must apply that same logic to other aspects such as education, cigarettes and alcohol. Soon it will be over eating and lack of exercise, laugh if you will, but its the logical conclusion.

Imagine if our speech and press was regulated. My opponent would argue all the possible bad things folks would say if they had freedom to say what they wanted.....and certainly their are many things that ought not to be said but shall we regulate that too?

Think Logic.

Someday someone's going to ask "Why are recreational drugs illegal but not alcohol?"

The only answer will be make them both legal or both illegal otherwise your in a permanent state of illogical laws. Illogical laws will eventually be changed to align themselves with logic or the republic will fail.

Then someone will ask "Why are alcohol and drugs illegal but over eating isn't? I mean it is an enormous burden on societies health cost and people die all the time in car crashes because someone had a heart attack and obesity kills more people than all other things combined, blah blah blah.??"

the best link ever!
http://www.cato.org...
liberty

Con

My opponent once again fails to provide any other argument and continues with liberty. He claims: "You see ultimately this debate is philosophically and logically about liberty, so I can't stop discussing it." This is false the issue of the debate and simultaneously the core value is LAW; this is because it is stated in the resolution and because changing it is the reason of the debate. This is my opponent's second excuse so far for not providing another contention that is also proved wrong. His first one was in Round 2 when he claimed that he had no time (!). Therefore, my opponent had no logical reason to not provide more and stronger contentions.
Next, my opponent once strays from the topic by explaining what he believes about government. I remind him that this is irrelevant to drug legalization.
He concludes his first paragraph point with a quote:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- We all understand that Benjamin Franklin meant that PERSONAL safety can be given up and definitely not the safety of OTHERS, this is because a human has absolutely no right, under any circumstances, to give away another's liberty without his consent! Therefore, this point better supports the negative than the affirmative.

"If you will notice my opponent would like to purchase a little safety by giving up some liberty. He says MAY cause. This is the first violation of Liberty....Supposed Safety. This doesn't sound so bad until other people start using the government to provide them safety from "possible" not "actual" acts and everything just spirals out of control."

- Yes I do say ‘may' and this is intentional. I used the word may because it would be terribly wrong, if I said that it would ALWAYS cause the user to commit crimes , because it would be a generalization, but the fact that it SOME users would commit crimes while under the influence of drugs is certain. Other than this, my opponent fails to counter my argument and I extend to the 4th Round.

To add to his point he quotes Hitler:
"The masses are far more likely to believe a big lie than several small ones."

My opponent is either making an irrelevant point or he is saying that the fact that certain users would commit crimes while under the influence of drugs is a big lie, without explaining why he thinks so (!). I am neither trying to buy liberty through safety, as my opponent claims, nor am I lying. I am simply making a point which he fails to refute.

"At this point in the debate there is no MAY about it now it is INEVITABLY and WILL happen. The only thing that opposes liberty is fear. Attempts to criminalize and regulate drugs and alcohol have repeatedly failed as my opponent has admitted with alcohol and cigarettes. This is the only way to trick people into being overly regulated; lie to them about the inevitable disaster you are saving them from..."

- I am using the word inevitably here, because it is inevitable that over the years many such incidents will occur. Once again, he is accusing me of lying, without explaining why (a violation I believe) and without proving that such actions will definitely not occur. Therefore other than this and repeating his quote that has already been addressed and his claim that, my opponent fails to refute my argument by not PROVING that that such actions will not occur, while I DID in a way prove that they will. So, extend this argument to the 4th Round.

"This is the final breath of liberty, as my opponent has accepted, when we regulate recreational drugs we now must apply that same logic to other aspects such as education, cigarettes and alcohol. Soon it will be over eating and lack of exercise, laugh if you will, but it's the logical conclusion."

My opponent is trying to counter these 2 points

1.)"Not going to school is already illegal (!!!) and an increased criminal activity of the non-educated was one of the many reasons that the law was passed."

- This is true, it is not something I expressed an opinion on etc. It is simply a fact! You HAVE to go up to the 9th grade, before dropping out. I am not campaigning against liberty as my opponent claims for the fifth time.

2.) My opponent doesn't provide my entire argument. This is very frustrating, because by doing so it seems as if in my argument, I am proposing to ban cigarettes, which is not the case. The whole thing is:

"If parents can't control their children we should ban these [Cigarettes and Alcohol] in order to protect society and the growing and sensitive bodies of kids, but we can't [(!)]. This is because people would react. At least these aren't nearly as harmful as hard drugs and teens are somewhat safe from more serious health problems caused from hard drugs. If drugs were allowed, we wouldn't be able to ban them. So legalizing drugs is irreversible, we cannot recall our decision, because just like alcohol, people would react, so risking the lives of children is a dangerous risk because if we fail to control ourselves and our children we cannot recall our decision if we find that we have made a mistake."

- As you can see am not saying that we should ban cigarettes and alcohol, I am providing an argument: a (hypothetical!!!) ban, is not possible. I do so in order to prove that the case would be the same with drugs (that if we allow them re-banning them would be impossible). Sadly, my opponent fails to refute this argument for yet another Round; instead he chooses to twist my words by not posting the argument as it should be. Therefore this argument is (once again) extended.

"Imagine if our speech and press was regulated. My opponent would argue all the possible bad things folks would say if they had freedom to say what they wanted.....and certainly there are many things that ought not to be said but shall we regulate that too?"

- No one is proposing this. The topic is drug legalization and once again my opponent strays from it. He puts words in my mouth that I neither say nor intend to do say in the future.

My opponent asks a question: "Why are recreational drugs illegal but not alcohol?"
My opponent repeats himself and proves once more that he has no other arguments. I have already responded to a very similar question in Round 2 and my answer is the same (alcohol is less addictive for teenagers, drugs are more dangerous to non users that socialize or drive with users etc). My opponent concludes by saying that the same question will be repeated in the case of over eating etc. It gets easier and easier to answer to such questions as they get scaled down, for example over eating is necessary for some people (e.g. Phelps eats 1200 calories per day in order to be able to swim professionally), people have different metabolisms and so on, and so on…

Finally keep in mind:
My opponent didn't correctly refute or even bother to refute in certain cases the vast majority of my points, while I correctly refuted each and every argument of his own (that was on topic). Instead, my opponent chose to twist my words, name my arguments "lies", without justifying his belief and falsely accusing me to be against liberty. Also my opponent did not even have a rebuttal in Round 3 (!) and due to that I extended all my arguments. Also, my opponent goes on and on about liberty that in the case of the affirmative is inevitably violated (life of innocents) and is therefore a weak argument, this happens because you can't support a liberty by supporting an action that will violate liberty, it is against logic. Therefore, my opponent fails to provide enough strong arguments in order to affirm the resolution.
In conclusion, there is a big difference between my opponent's case and my own, despite the fact that we both support liberty. My case is stronger because the right to life is superior to that of drug use.

Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zoundmind 8 years ago
zoundmind
the world is more dangerous by laws agenst freedom,if safty was a concern to our sociaty then we would stop criminalizing our people for consentual freedoms.
i can die from 1 bad hit on my skateboard
i could fall to my death loosing my fingernails on the way down,mountain climbing
and the poor children will suffer
we should ban everything the world is to unsafe for itself
lock them iall n cages with hemets and seatbelts
its what god wants
4 the babies
4 our safty .
i fear its 4 the $
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Here is some evidence, you can find page after page and site after site, take your pick. You will find none that say drug use at work increases productivity or reduces accidents when people are on drugs at work.

http://www.dol.gov...
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
"If drugs were to be legalized then employers should be allowed to discriminate against the user as people who use drugs are a danger at the work place . This is irrefutable"

Evidence please
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Too bad I didn't get in on this earlier, jmlandf might have won. I have to agree that if they were legalized, then they could be monitored more closely for one. Also we would not have a deficient, because the taxes they would impose be so great a return.
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
I attended a lecture once where the speaker suggested that the complete abolition of drug laws would "weed out" society's lesser citizens by essentially natural selection. Those weak-willed enough to become addicted would remove themselves from the Earth by bringing about their own death. Very though provoking, ya know?
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Refusal to acknowledge reality. People who use drugs are an overall blite on society. What part of this that some people don't understand is mindbogglingly. But then again they are the ones that are most likely using drugs.
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
Much irony lies in the fact that the person arguing against the libertarian position is named 'liberty'. The basic rule of law is grounded in the belief that if an individual injures the freedom of another, either in a physical or economic manner, that person has committed a crime. If a person engages in an activity during which, at that moment, they only harm themselves, does that not run afoul of the mentioned premise? Con's arguments about what *might* happen if someone engages in recreational drug use more resembles criminal conspiracy law, dwelling on substantial progress and overt acts.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
As the saying goes: Careful what you ask for you just might get it. It will be hard for people who use drugs to get good paying jobs thus stealing to support ones habit will ensue. Not that this isn't the case already.
Posted by jmlandf 9 years ago
jmlandf
I of course agree with the below comment, but that does not pertain to the debate.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
If drugs were to be legalized then employers should be allowed to discriminate against the user as people who use drugs are a danger at the work place . This is irrefutable
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
jmlandflibertyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by the_conservative 9 years ago
the_conservative
jmlandflibertyTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by jmlandf 9 years ago
jmlandf
jmlandflibertyTied
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 sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
jmlandflibertyTied
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:07