The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Should Cocaine be 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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 70228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




Cocaine should be illegal.
I. It is harmful
II. "freedom of choice" or "because I want to" is irrational and does not justify an action

Arguments will be presented in the later rounds.

Cocaine: a common recreational drug, "an addictive drug derived from coca or prepared synthetically, used as an illegal stimulant and sometimes medicinally as a local anesthetic."

legal: allowed by law



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I. Cocaine is harmful
Some short term effects include-
Loss of appetite
Increased heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature
Contracted blood vessels
Increased rate of breathing
Dilated pupils
Disturbed sleep patterns
Bizarre, erratic, sometimes violent behavior
Hallucinations, hyperexcitability, irritability
Tactile hallucination that creates the illusion of bugs burrowing under the skin
Intense euphoria
Anxiety and paranoia
Intense drug craving
Panic and psychosis
Convulsions, seizures and sudden death from high doses (even one time)

Some long term effects include:
Permanent damage to blood vessels of heart and brain
High blood pressure, leading to heart attacks, strokes, and death
Liver, kidney and lung damage
Destruction of tissues in nose if sniffed
Respiratory failure if smoked
Infectious diseases and abscesses if injected
Malnutrition, weight loss
Severe tooth decay
Auditory and tactile hallucinations
Sexual problems, reproductive damage and infertility (for both men and women)
Disorientation, apathy, confused exhaustion
Irritability and mood disturbances
Increased frequency of risky behavior
Delirium or psychosis
Severe depression
Tolerance and addiction (even after just one use)


Cocaine is addictive and very harmful to a human body.

II. Why "because I want to" isn't a good reason.
"Because I want to" isn't good reasoning for any subject.
See here, you could apply it to cocaine
Why would you do cocaine sir? Because I fell like it. (because I want to etc.)

Now if we take the same proposition and apply it to different questions, you will see the disastrous and irrational effects.
Why do you believe in God? "because I want to" (NOTICE: Im not saying a belief in God is wrong, just that "because I want to" is not a good thing to justify it.)
Why do you believe in Evolution? "because I want to" (Same Notice as above)
Why do you murder people? "because I want to"
Why do you hate minority groups? "because I want to.
Why do you commit horrible atrocities? "because I want to"

This type of reasoning will not justify anything. It is a foolish notion, to act simply because you want to.

Back to you.

Good luck!



Point I
Accept without disagreament

Point II
Accept without disagreament

Argument for legalization
Drugs and drug users have a strong cultural stigma. Cocaine and cocaine users run near the top of that stigmatization in recent times. Historic fluctuation in acceptance of use has wide extremes from such ubiquity that it was an ingredient in American classic products like Coke-a-cola to[1] the height of the war on drugs, where since 1990 some estimate that nearly half a million homicides in Colombia can be linked to combating cocaine.

Users of other legalized drugs may have greater acceptance, but have greater negative impact on an individual and society. As rated by “Harm to others” and “harm to self”, cocaine ranks just slightly above tobacco, and well behind alcohol, two legal drugs [4]. Smoking and alcohol use rank much higher as causes of death than cocaine [5].

Irrespective of current cultural acceptance, users of Cocaine have existed for four thousand years, using the drug as a stimulant and anesthetic [3]. Cocaine use has remained fairly steady through time, with a similarly steady and relativity low addiction rate [7][6]. However, regardless of the steady use, the probation of cocaine has cost an insane amount of money and life’s [6][2]. The most recent federal budget allocates more than 15 billion dollars to fight the war on drugs. That number is near the total budget for NASA. While cocaine is only one drug in the war on drugs, the number from the federal budget does not contain the costs for policing and incarceration. The numbers boggle the mind with little obvious effects on the perceived issue.

Drug use is and will remain a personal choice. Responsible drug use or abuse, neither will be impacted by the probation of drug. The only clear fact is that the drug exists now and will be used. If the intent of public policy is to help society, probation is not going to accomplish that goal.








Debate Round No. 2


III. The failure of legalization (as history shows us).

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."64 Legalization advocates claim that marijuana use in Netherlands has not increased since the laws were liberalized, but the number of Amsterdam drug cafes rose from 30 to over 300 in one decade. They also fail to note that daily marijuana use by U.S. youth has declined by 75 percent.

Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin. Recently, however,

Spanish officials have begun a crack-down on drug pushers due to a dramatic increase in the addiction rate.71 Unsurprisingly, Spain and Italy, which also legalized use of cocaine and heroin, have the highest rates of both drug use and overdose of all European countries.

Lest we forget the lessons of history, consider that in the late 1800's, opium was legal in China. By 1900, ninety million Chinese were addicted to the drug, and it took fifty years of repressive police measures and rehabilitation to correct the problem.73 Today, opium and other addictive drugs are illegal.74 This also led to the Chinese being controlled by the British because the British supplied the drug and the Chinese where so addicted.

As you can see, drug legalization and addiction leads to bondage, crime, and sorrow.

Back to you ;)


I would like to be able to start this round saying I enjoyed this debate " unfortunately I have some sad issues with how it has gone.

Con"s round two argument was almost completely cribbed from the source provided. The only part that wasn't word for word was the "II. Why "because I want to" isn't a good reason." section. In my round two, I realized issue, and decided it was not necessary to point out at the time. In fact, I simply accepted the points, as I have little issue with the points generally.

I put forward my argument in round two. Con"s round three is, with the exception of "As you can see, drug legalization and addiction leads to bondage, crime, and sorrow." And "Back to you ;)" was verbatim copied and pasted from the site referenced. I at least thank him for noting the source, but think little of the effort to compose the argument or direct rebuttal. I have no reason to believe con bothered to even read them.

I hardly have the heart to put much effort into a proper summary. How about - Vote pro because plagiarism is not a debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
Leo.Messi - Can you open your account to messaging. Want to ask you question.
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
@Leo.Messi, if you want to keep an argument going than I will say bluntly. YOU never made a argument. The author of the webpage you copied from made an argument.
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
Actually in the third round you didn't argue anything, you just said I "copy/pasted". It was a good argument that I had, and I did not make a rule that you couldn't copy and paste...
Posted by TBR 3 years ago
I did argue a position, you simply cut and pasted information from one site. I accepted points I and II from the first mass cut&paste. Cocaine can be harmful and addictive. Not points that are in dispute.

The second mass cut and paste was a... I guess attempt to rebut my points, but didn't address them directly. It was the best fit you could find from the site to completely crib from.

This debate could have been done by you saying "look at this link!". As for insulting you, its insulting to me that you put no effort into making a argument, or rebutting points I made.
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
Plagarism? You didnt even argue at all friend. You either accepted my points or criticized me. And I told you what source I got it from. lol
Posted by MrTommyBeer 3 years ago
Legalising cocaine and having it sold via government would reduce possibility of injury. I.e. The damaging materials mixed with cocaine currently to produce more product and increase profit. Buying it from a regulated source will ensure that it's safe (as safe as cocaine can be).

On the other hand, legalising drugs massively creates more drug addicts. Having drugs readily available increases the chances of becoming an addict.
Posted by Leo.Messi 3 years ago
Perhaps. But I intend to debate anyone who may be inclined to the opposite opinion.
Posted by TheismDown 3 years ago
I'm not quite sure anyone would be for the legalization of cocaine
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct for Con's plagiarism.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized