Should All Drugs be legalized?
Debate Rounds (5)
In this round (round 1) we will explain our position, our main, our political ideology, our country oir people of representation, and a goal of the debate, We WILL not place our support point in this round. Again round 2 will be the area where we bring our supporting ideas.
Position: Centerist, Socialist libertarian, liberal socialist
I represent Canada (as I am a Citizen here) and the people whom are repressed or feel repressed of freedoms from doing what they wish within the context of universal morality.
My goal of this debate is to explain my frustrations with the lack of freedoms on one can have over their own body, in this debate specifically i will be explaining how drug uses is a freedom we are repressed from and why it shouldn't be such.
I am also a liberal socialist and believe in everyone's liberty to have free will and not have the unfair lack of ability to think for themselves due to the influences of class A drugs blotting out any sense of logic in their mind whereby they'd kill murder and torture just to get access to eithr drugs or the money to purchase them. Don't believe that drugs can have this much effect on people? Heroin is one of them, let me show you in a video just how bad it can get.
As Jeffrey Rogers Hummel states inHeroin: The Shocking Story," April 1988--- estimates vary widely for the proportion of violent/property crime related to drugs. Forty percent is a midpoint or measure of central tendency. In an October 1987 survey by Wharton Econometrics for the U.S. Customs Service, the 739 police chiefs responding blamed drugs for 1/5 of murders and rapes, 1/4 of car thefts, 2/5 of robberies and assaults and 1/2 of the nation's burglaries and thefts." The numbers are much greater today at the end of the century. History repeats itself and we are re-learning the devastation of 1920's Prohibition today. Drugs are products, like alcohol in the '20s, that people want and will ignore the authorities to obtain. Nothing will stop the desire forany productthat people want.
The theoretical and statistical correlations between drugs and crime are well established. In a 2 1/2-year study of Detroit crime, Lester P. Silverman, former associate director of the National Academy of Sciences' Assembly of Behavior and Social Sciences, found that a 10 percent increase in the price of heroin alone "produced an increase of 3.1 percent total property crimes in poor nonwhite neighborhoods." Armed robbery jumped 6.4 percent and simple assault by 5.6 percent throughout the city.
The reasons are not difficult to understand. When law enforcement restricts the supply of drugs, the price of drugs rises. In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Colombia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the United States for some $300,000. At the time a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman noted, matter-of-factly, that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the U.S." Statistics indicating the additional number of people killed or mugged in direct relation to the DEA's crackdown on cocaine are not available. The obvious point is that black markets for any desirable illegal products cannot be stopped.
For heroin, the factory-to-retail price differential is even greater. According to U.S. News & World Report, in 1985 a gram of pure heroin in Pakistan cost $5.07, but it sold for $2425 on the street in America--nearly a 500% markup.
The unhappy consequence is that crime also rises, for at least four reasons:
Addicts must shell out hundreds of times the cost of goods, so they often must turn to crime to finance their habits. The higher the price goes, the more they need to steal to buy the same amount.
At the same time, those who deal or purchase the stuff find themselves carrying extremely valuable goods, and become attractive targets for assault.
Police officers and others suspected of being informants for law enforcement quickly become targets for reprisals.
The streets become literally a battleground for "turf" among competing dealers, as control over a particular block or intersection can net thousands of additional drug dollars per day.
Conversely, if and when drugs are legalized, their price will collapse and so will the sundry drug-related motivations to commit crime. Consumers will no longer need to steal to support their habits. A packet of cocaine will be as tempting to grab from its owner as a pack of cigarettes is today. Drug dealers will be pushed out of the retail market by known drugstore retailers. When was the last time we saw employees of Rite Aid pharmacies shoot it out with Thrift Drugs for a corner storefront? When drugs become legal, we will be able to sleep in our homes and walk the streets more safely. As one letter-writer to the Philadelphia Inquirer put it, "law-abiding citizens will be able to enjoy not living in fear of assault and burglary."
3. Drug legalization would free up police resources to fight non-drug related crimes against people and property.
The considerable police efforts now expended against drug activity and drug-related crime (1/3 to 1/2 of resources) could be redirected toward protecting innocent people from those who would still commit crime in the absence of drug laws. The police could protect us more effectively, since police could focus resources on catching rapists, murderers and the remaining perpetrators of crimes against people and property.
of Appeals Courts; and in any event there would be fewer cases to review in the first place.
I tyupedmy thing and i deltedit by accident
this is the general idea
7. Legalized drugs would cripple organized crime.
The Mafia (heroin), Jamaican gangs (crack), and the Medellin Cartel (cocaine) stand to lose billions in drug profits from legalization. On a per-capita basis, members of organized crime, particularly at the top, stand to lose the most from legalizing the drug trade.
The underworld became big business in the United States when alcohol was prohibited. Few others would risk setting up the illegal distribution networks, bribing officials or killing a policeman or competitor once in a while. When alcohol was re-legalized, reputable manufacturers resumed production. The risk and the high profits disappeared from the alcohol trade. Even if organized crime wanted to keep control over alcohol, the gangsters could not have targeted every manufacturer and every beer store. Customers preferred good alcohol over rot-gut and poison. The profits from illegal alcohol were minuscule compared to the dollars generated from today's illegal drugs. These dollars are the underworld's last great source of illegal income--dwarfing anything to be made from gambling, prostitution and any other vice.
Legalizing drugs would eliminate this huge income source from under organized crime. Smugglers and pushers would have to go legitimate or go out of business. There simply wouldn't be enough other criminal endeavors to employ them all. Drug users would buy from reputable manufacturers at a much lower price. A user's habit could be supported with honest work because high drug prices would be eliminated. Drugs that kill and blind people would disappear. Users of legal drugs would have the right to their day in court, if a drug manufacturer is negligent. No such rights exist today.
If we are concerned about the influence of organized crime on government, industry and our own personal safety, we could strike no single more damaging blow against today's gangsters than to legalize drugs
10. Legalization would halt the erosion of other civil liberties.
Hundreds of government agencies and corporations have used the alleged cost of illegal drugs as an excuse to test their employees for drug usage. Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Walker (he was defeated) embarked on a crusade to withhold federal money from any company or government agency that didn't guarantee a "drug-free workplace". This is a Don Quixote crusade.
The federal government has pressured foreign countries to grant access to bank records so it can check for "laundered" drug money. Because drug dealers handle lots of cash, domestic banks are now required to report cash deposits over $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service for evidence of illicit profit.
The drugs and drug profits that led to the abrogation of civil liberties would disappear with drug legalization. Before drugs became big business, investors could put their money in secure banks abroad without fear of harassment.Mom and popstores could deposit their cash receipts undaunted that they may appear like criminals.
Nobody tests urine for levels of sugar or caffeine as a requirement for employment or grounds for dismissal. However, if caffeine were declared illegal it would certainly become a lot riskier to use, and hence a possible target for testing "for the sake of our employees". Legalizing today's illegal drugs, which weren't illegal before 1913, would make them safer and deflate the drive to test for drug use.
oshodemonstrates my point best
The purpose of a Law regarding legalization regards to how safe or unsafe it is for society and the individuals in it. Certain drugs completely disrupt BOTH safeties. This is why the Legalization of many drugs is not valid.
I have for a long time thought about what to post and it comes down to the effect of some f*cking nasty drugs. These things are the worst out there.
I shall list the drug and its risk for human consumption according to http://www.talktofrank.com... next round I shall justify why each and every oen warrants non-legalization.
oreostar forfeited this round.
It is the duty of law and government to prevent society destroying itself.
oreostar forfeited this round.
oreostar forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.