The Instigator
DillonKennedy_MSYP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jpl951
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Regulate the Sales of Legal Highs and Educate Young People of Dangers Of Legal Highs

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...
jpl951
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 479 times Debate No: 60358
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

DillonKennedy_MSYP

Pro

as many people are aware , legal highs are dangerous and can often cause death

they may say not for human consumption but people take them anyway. they get around the law by stating that they are either plant food or bath salts and that is just outrageous

although the action needed is to reclassify them as illegal we need to first regulate the sale of legal highs and also educate our young people in the dangers of legal Highs
jpl951

Con

Regulate nothing! We should not regulate the sale of 'legal highs' because drugs shouldn't be illegal. Let me be clear, I am not advocating for the use of drugs by any means. I am simply arguing that it is not the government's, or anyone's for that matter, job to decide what people can and cannot do. Even if the intent behind criminalizing drugs may seem good, It is still wrong to oppress the freedoms of others just because you believe it is in their best interest to do so.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience..." -C.S. Lewis
Debate Round No. 1
DillonKennedy_MSYP

Pro

I believe that regulating legal highs and educating the young people is the best way in wich to combat this major issue

as an MSYP for my constituency , i have been asked to solve this issue by hundreds of my constituents.

so here is a comment by Jackson Carlaw
"This is clearly a problem that is getting worse, and we need a plan of action to tackle it"

Jackson Carlaw
Scottish Conservatives

also to look at the breakdown figures for scotland for hospital admissions

Below is a regional breakdown on legal high admissions, from the health boards who collect the information:

NHS Ayrshire and Arran " 164

NHS Lanarkshire " 13

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde " 33

NHS Shetland " 16

NHS Tayside " 92

NHS Western Isles " 5

Scotland " 323

Below is the annual breakdown for Scotland for legal high admissions:

2009 " 15

2010 " 58

2011 " 28

2012 " 61

2013 " 139

2014 so far " 4

Other (where health board couldn"t disclose actual year) " 18

Total " 323

also
Legal highs were present in 36 drug-related deaths in 2012, a study published today has revealed.

The analysis of nearly 500 fatalities found a growing incidence of "new and novel" substances being found in the deceased individual"s system.

ISD Scotland said the rising problem of legal highs like mephedrone was of "increasing public HEALTH CONCERN".

earlier this year how hundreds of people have been admitted to hospital over the last four years because of the emergence of these new substances.

The National Drug-Related Deaths DATABASE also revealed 52 of the deaths were as a result of suicide, while more than a third of those who died in 2012 were a parent.

Nearly all of the drug-deaths studied involved the taking of more than one substances

that is why they need to be regulated and the children and young people need to be educated on this major issue
jpl951

Con

The issue is that this is not a problem that one can simply tackle. If history has proven anything its that the criminalization and regulation of drugs legal or otherwise has only been effective in creating systems of mass incarceration. The idea that the ends will eventually justify the means is a false and terrifying one because there is no end, there is only means.
Even based off of your information, which I would point out I have no way of checking it's validity given you left no source of where you are pulling the info, based off of your claims it is clear that drugs are a ever changing and evolving issue and as you put it "new and novel" substances are inevitable. Most of which are using products that are 'legal' such as hand sanitizer, prescription drugs, and so on. So, how then do you suppose one is to regulate something that is constantly growing and constantly evolving? You simply can not. Although you can try but I would argue that the emergence of "new and novel" substances are the direct result of regulation. Once you make a certain substance illegal people will look for some other way to achieve the same results, using substances that are often much more harmful than criminalized substances but easier to obtain. Simply look at The United States who has been fighting the war on drugs since 1969. But despite being the birthplace of the global "war on drugs and having some of the harshest drug penalties, the U.S. Has the highest marijuana and cocaine use rates in the world.
I would point out that I do not see how including the number of drug related suicides is relevant. If anything that is more a issue of mental health than a drug issue. It is not as if you are suggesting we regulate the sale of over the counter prescription drugs like Tylenol, which could be used to achieve the same effect? Another point, what then of other 'legal highs' such as tobacco, alcohol, sugar, caffeine, cough medicine and so on? How would you regulate those? Keep in mind that regulatory legislation like we saw during prohibition didn't work out that well.
You argue that we should be educating the youth about the dangers of "legal highs " and drugs In general. To that I would point out the fact that history has proven time and again the ineffectiveness of anti-drug education programs. I would also point out that this study by the national Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) shows that ""between 2007 and 2009 there was a 37% increase in the percentage of 12- to 17-year-olds who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs(19% to 26%).
(http://www.casacolumbia.org...)
Let me be clear I am not advocating for the drugs to be legally given to anyone under the legal age. I am strictly arguing against the regulation of substances to consenting adults.
I apologize if my argument is not as clear as it could be. In order to avoid forfeiting the round I may have rushed a bit.
Debate Round No. 2
DillonKennedy_MSYP

Pro

DillonKennedy_MSYP forfeited this round.
jpl951

Con

I would however like to start off with addressing something I wanted to get to in the last round but was not able to and that is I wanted to clarify the rhetoric behind the words regulation and legalization. To be clear I am arguing for the legalization of drugs that does not mean that it should be a completely unregulated issue. Just like anything else there needs to be some level of control like with the FDA. Regulation as my opponent sees it, is a means to a end, to quote "the action needed is to reclassify them as illegal [although] we need to first regulate the sale of legal highs" As you can see my opponent views the word regulate as a way of controlling and restricting the legalization of 'legal highs' and eventually making them illegal.
I on the other hand make the argument that we regulate the use of drugs like we do any other substance to the point of 'legalization'. It is my view that it is not a government's or individuals place to decide what others can and cannot do even if it might be against the persons well being. A consenting adult should have the right to do what they choose. We do not regulate how much food a person can eat even though over eating has proven to have adverse affects on ones health. Why should drugs be treated differently? We do not regulate how much alcohol one can drink even though over drinking can lead to death. Note that we do regulate what you can do under the influence of alcohol and the age at which you can buy it. I am not arguing against that type of regulation because it ensures that an individual is of the legal age to make a informed decision about alcohol and it also deters engaging in activities that may effect others. Likewise, there is an appropriate level of regulation when it comes to prescription drugs which in some cases can be just as addictive and harmful to ones health when abused as their illegal counterparts.
This graph of the Cumulative Lifetime Incidences of Drug Use probably best shows the ineffectiveness of criminalization and restriction of drug use given the fact that in it the united states has one of the highest in all areas despite spending around $15 billion annually on the war on drugs:
http://www.plosmedicine.org...

My final point is that if the only reason you wish to regulate drug use is so that you can re-criminalize them and continue the war on drugs then I would ask you; when exactly is this war going to be one? Never. The truth is to have a war you have to presumably have a way of determining whether or not you have won. The real issue is that of addiction and the only way to fight that is through treatment rather than criminalization. To quote Russel Brand in a 2012 debate over the War on Drugs, "...the inevitable social and the criminal problems that come from drug use are as a result of its criminalization." (http://www.intelligencesquared.com... )
Debate Round No. 3
DillonKennedy_MSYP

Pro

DillonKennedy_MSYP forfeited this round.
jpl951

Con

Well since my opponent seems to have forfeited the rest of the debate I will be short.
In summary, to repeat that even if the intent behind criminalizing drugs may seem good, It is still wrong to oppress the freedoms of others just because you believe it is in their best interest to do so.
I would also like give you the second half of that C.S. Lewis quote I used in my first argument. Why? Because I like it and...why not?

".... They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."- C.S. Lewis

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
DillonKennedy_MSYPjpl951Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
DillonKennedy_MSYPjpl951Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.