Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use.
This is a debate for A341 to finially finish his debate on this topic and I took him up on this. I thank him ahead of time for accepting this challenge.
Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments.
Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes.
Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion.
Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon."
If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points.
All- every (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Legalized- to make legal (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
recreationial (drug)- recreation http://dictionary.reference.com...)
*Note- this debate is about legalizing drugs for recreationial purposes not medicinial.
I would like to thank lannan13 for being kind enough to allow me to finish this debate (fourth time lucky?).
We know the economics of prohibition. We know that when a substance is prohibited the economy takes a hit . This will reduce the standard of living for the populous as a whole.
I would like to know what my opponent thinks gives him the right to regulate what a person does to their own body in the privacy of their own home.
Lowers Drug Addiction
Under almost every example of legalisation drug consumption goes down, this is because in countries where drugs are legalised there is not legal pressure not to come forward as an addict and because of this in countries where drugs are legalised more addicts get treatment .
Contention 1: Economy
The DEA has connected the link between Marijuana and terrorist activities. Legalization will only increase it as the demand will go up while the Cartels will use violence to keep the supply down. Here is a quote from the DEA regarding this issue, "The bombers swapped hashish and ecstasy for the 440 pounds of dynamite used in the blasts, which killed 191 people and injured more than 1,400 others. Money from the drugs also paid for an apartment hideout, a car, and the cell phones used to detonate the bombs." (http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...)
Donnie Marshall, Congressional subcommittee on drugs has stated that legalization will not stop violence.
Marijuana is addictive and can increase your heart rate by a factor of 20 to 100. Smoking 1 joint is the equilivent of smoking 5 cigarettes. The 'High' fallowed by a crash that can cause fear and depression. These last forever while a 'High' will only last a few hours. (http://www.charismanews.com...)
We all know how expensive our health bills are. Well, when it comes to Marijuana in the year 2002, the ONDCP has found that the total cost of Marijuana injuries totaled over $52 billion, that's when it's illegal. Imagine if it were legal and opened up to the general population.
Contention 2: Human Freedom
For this response to what Pro had said last round I have three responses; Gonzalez V. Rich, application of Thomas Hobbes theory, and finaly the rights of the individual.
In the Gonzalez V. Rich Supreme Court Case the Supreme Court ruled that the state law may not trump federal law. This case had to deal with medicinial marijuana in California, but since it could be shipped elsewhere for commerce and due to the Commerce Clause this makes what Colorado and Washington are doing unconstitutional.
Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted.
"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."
Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) This shows that both Hobbes and Freud show that humans are terrible creatures and make terrible choices, hence the phrase, “Only human.” This is why we need the government to regulate many of these things otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do many things, because we would be so dysfunctional.
Another piece of justification is that your rights end where the rights of other’s begins. Which would mean that all sale and purchasing drugs would lead to violation of other’s rights due to their bodily harm. (http://techcrunch.com...) Especially if they are any of the ones named in Contention 4.
Contention 3: Addiction
My opponent argues that legalized addiction will lead to lower addiction rates, but this is incorrect. The accessability will actually lead to an increase of addiction and especially that of children. (http://www.addictionblog.net...)
What about Colorado? Aren’t they a good example of good Marijuana control and legalization? Sure…if you like to include that the very first day that they came into legalization that a total of 37 people died of overdose. (http://blogs.westword.com...)
Contention 4: Crazy Drugs that will be legalized.
I will leave this video here that details these drugs. (https://www.youtube.com...)
My opponent agreed to that it will be all legalized, so let me get into some of these.
Devils Breath- this drug is used for amnesia (causes) them to do anything you want and they have no memory of it the next day. It’s a powder that you just blow into your vitiums face.
Dipted- This causes ringing in the ears, distorted music and sounds for three weeps.
Bromo Dragon Fly- This is like LSD but lasts three weeks, causes seizers, vein spasms and more.
Jankum- Made from fragmented poop for a week. This causes hallusenations for 3 hours. You are smelling the methane from your poop.
DNP- For weight loss, but this this raises your body heat from the inside to the point that you cook from the inside.
Etrophine- Like meth and morphine, so strong that 1/1000th of a gram can knock out an elephant. Can you imagine if someone drops this into your drink. This is like a date rape, but tons a time stro
For legal reasons I must state that I have never used any illegal mind altering substances.
While at the moment drugs and other crime are very integrated they do not necessary have to be and there is past precedent that they don't have to be (well unless you count bombing the Chinese as a crime). In fact this connection is one of the main reasons why it can be argued that drugs should be legalised as this would cut out at least some of the criminals and force many others to reform their practices.
As I showed in the last round legalisation is usually linked with positive effects for the economy .
When a drug is legalised addicts will more often come forward and those that do will come forward and seek treatment more quickly this would lower healthcare costs rather than increase them. Furthermore the ability to treat an rehabilitate many more drug addicts would create a considerable amount of new workers who would increase economic productivity as a whole.
Furthermore more research into the medical uses of many currently prohibited drugs could save untold millions even billions in medical expenses as these relatively inexpensive drugs might be able to replace vastly more expensive laboratory produced ones.
Is Human Nature Really Evil?
If we look at societies that function without the threat of government force (anarchist societies) we usually don't see a breakdown of morality (there are a number of examples of these  ). But regardless surly you can accept that an unnecessary authoritarian government is a bad thing.
My opponent has sited a source which claims that 37 people died on the first day of legalisation in Colorado. I thought this was a bit suspicious as previous to this no one has ever been recorded to have died from an overdose of cannabis . And so I tracked down his claim to a "daily current" claiming that the "Rocky Mountain News" first published the story. The "Rocky Mountain News" turns out to be a tabloid that ran from 1859 to 2009   (?). Now this seemed odd to me as well and then I found the real explanation: On the about section of the "Daily Current's" website it lists a question and that question is "Are your news stories real?" the answer provided was: "No. Our stories are purely fictional. However they are meant to address real-world issues through satire and often refer and link to real events happening in the world" .
The main claim of your other source (which was an un-sited blog) was that children would find it easier to get hold of drugs. I don't know about you but from personal experience drugs are much more offered to me (as an under age person) than alcohol and I suspect that if drugs were legalised then this would no longer be the case.
A Few Words on the Insane Drugs
I never said that drugs were safe or that under any circumstances you should take them.
 Schmidt, Michael (2013). Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism
 http://dailycurrant.com... ("According to a report in the Rocky Mountain News").
Post Script: I am not an American (I'm Scottish) and as such arguments relating to the US constitution don't really have any meaning to me (and more or less every other non-US-citizen) I understand the importance of the US constitution to Americans but it has no significant meaning to me.
Contention 1: Crime
In the above graph we can see that the red line, representing violvence connected to drug trafficing is skyrocketing and is competing with homocide numbers by males. (http://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu...)
I would now like to point out what is occuring in Mexico with drug trackers and that the violence is increasing, but though they have a strong War against terror I would like to extend across the DEA evidence that I provided last round and that was not refuted which stating that legalization does not cut down on the violence. This is a key point of evidence is from a government agency (and yes I understand that my opponent does not live in Scotland, but this is still important.
The above series of graphs show the violence that the drug cartel has raged against the drug cartels and the average citizen and this shows the danger here. (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...)
If you think that this war hasn't had an effect on the US then you are wrong as the US is opperating inside the United States and they have found one of the major Drug Cartel forwarding bases to be in none other than Colorado. (http://freedomoutpost.com...)
Contention 2: Economy
Let's do some comparrision between US and the two states that have legalize pot to see is Pro's claim is actually true.
Now let's compare it to the Colorado unemployment rate. We can see that comparing to the Colorado unemployment numbers that the Colorado numbers are higher. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com...)
I would like to remind my opponent that this debate is about legalization for recreationial use not medicinial so his healthcare treatment is null and void.
Contentnion 3: Human Nature
Pro's source had shown that anarchy was not aquired, but instead it just shows the support for anarchy in Sapin grew to an all time high before the Spanish-American Civil War. This does not show any type of anarchic success, but instead it shows that it has support which nullifies the argument made by Pro. So I'll extend my Freud and Hobbes argument showing how terrible the average person is.
Contention 4: Addiction
I appologize as I did not know that it was a satiric article, but here is a CNN article speaking on a similiar subject. They report that there has been 3 confirmed deaths connected to marijuana. The USDEA has reported a major increase of hospitalizations from 3,200 to 13,000 in the span of 1 year. (http://www.cnn.com...)
While in the United Kingdom legalization of marijuana in London in the span of one year has seen a 40-100% increase of hopitalization and has hindered the local economy by 80,000 Euros. (http://blogs.hbr.org...) The number for the Scotts is just as bad as they have seen a total of 50% increase in hospitalizations due to marijuana within the first year. (http://www.thecourier.co.uk...)
I would like to point out that drugs are probably offered to you more since you live in Scotland and drugs have been legalized there, but here in the US it hasn't and it is more likely to be offered a cigarette more than anything else. Because this personal expierence holds no water in this debate I would like to extend this argument across.
Contention 5: Insane Drugs
I know that my opponent is defending the legalization of drgus and that doesn't mean that he doesn't recommend taking these as neither do I. The thing is though that the debate is about the legalization of all drgus includes the aweful ones that I have provided.
My Argument On Healthcare is Void?
If drugs are legalised for recreational use they would also be available for medical experiments (in the same way alcohol is) therefore my argument stands.
Drugs and Violence
When Alcohol was legalised in the US violence went down . In fact a large bump in the murder rate can be linked to the prohibition of alcohol in the US. During this time gangs took over the alcohol trade and this increased violence. When alcohol became illegal violence went up and when alcohol became legal violence dropped.
This same parallel works for drugs. When drugs are illegal crime goes up because the drug market is taken over by violent criminal gangs.
What if we compare the unemployment rate of the US as a whole with the Netherlands? Remembering that the Netherlands has far more Libertarian drug laws than united states. The Netherlands has an unemployment rate of 6.6%, its neighboring country Belgium which has much more authoritarian drug laws has an unemployment rate of 8.5% .
I showed that there were working anarchist communities in the north of Spain before and during the Spanish civil war .
It is considered impossible to overdose on marijuana  I can find no record of anyone who has died of marijuana.
(Marijuana is illegal in Scotland) I took a survey of 20 people under the age of 16 living in Scotland and this is the result.
65% Had been offered alcohol over the last six months.
80% Had been offered class B drugs over the last six months.
65% Had been offered class A drugs over the last six months.
Furthermore remember that the total cost of alcohol in medical bills every year is £6 billion , vastly more than marijuana.
Contention 1: Healthcare
I have stated at the begining of the debate and as it states in the resolution that they should be used for recreationial use, not medicinial. Major difference and thus the argument is null and void.
Contention 2: Drugs and violence.
Here is a murder rate in the US History from the begining of last century to present. The murder doesn't start to drop off until the late 1930's were WW II is starting to pick up steam and FDR's New Deal Policy is getting Americans back to work. (http://thepublicintellectual.org...)
We can see that the crime rate drop that we've seen isn't due to the Prohibition, but it is due to unemployment. (http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com...)
So with that my argument stands as my opponent has no link to the impact for the debate and thus my argument stands.
Contention 3: Economy
Actually, if my opponent wants to get specific the United States has an unemployment rate of 5.9%. (http://data.bls.gov...) Compared to Pro's numbers we can see that the US has less unemployment and thus my argument stands.
Contention 4: Human Nature
My opponent's own link states that support for anarchy was at it's highest in Spain. Anarchy never occured and any support for it was crushed in the Spanish Civil War.
Contention 5: Addiction
Though it may be concidered impossible I have sourced that there are deaths from it and massive hospitalizations in my last round. On my opponent's survey we can see that it is just a mear survey of randon people as my opponent could have targetted a select number of people and, because of this the survey is invalid. I also extend across last rounds massive hospitalizations numbers and economic harm.
Contention 6: Strange Drugs.
My opponent dropped this argument so I extend it across.
Thank you and please vote Con!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||0|