The Instigator
Bagelz4All21
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jzonda415
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Should Drugs Be Legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
jzonda415
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 467 times Debate No: 73313
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Bagelz4All21

Pro

Personally, I am totally against taking drugs, but if drugs were legalized, the US wouldn't have as many problems with drug lords, gangs, and border crossing (in order to deliver drugs) because there would be no need for them. This would lower the amount of crimes in the US. Indirectly, this would cause the amount of taxes going to prisons to lower, which would mean that more money would go to more important things such as education, military, or humanitarian services. Besides, tobacco and alcohol aren't much better than other substances, so if the US wants to make drugs illegal, then they might as well ban tobacco and alcohol as well.
jzonda415

Con

I thank Pro for this debate.

Pro, since he is proposing a dramatic shift from the status quo, carries the sole BOP. His arguments must show that all drugs, ranging from marijuana to meth, should be legalized. Let's define some terms for the debate:

Drug: an illegal and often harmful substance (such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, or marijuana) that people take for pleasure [1].

Legalization: removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal [2].

With the understanding of what Pro is attempting to prove, let's look at his arguments.

Pro's Case:

"Personally, I am totally against taking drugs, but if drugs were legalized, the US wouldn't have as many problems with drug lords, gangs, and border crossing (in order to deliver drugs) because there would be no need for them."


The thing Pro neglects in this comment is that cartels and drug gangs have other sources of income besides simply drugs, and their violence and terrorism would still continue if all drugs were legalized [4]. There are other ways to combat drug cartels and simply legalizing drugs and bring a copious amount of costs to society is not the most effective way (more on this in a bit).

"This would lower the amount of crimes in the US. Indirectly, this would cause the amount of taxes going to prisons to lower, which would mean that more money would go to more important things such as education, military, or humanitarian services."

In actuality, this would have the opposite fact, as drug legalization will increase consumption. The increase in usage is quite logical. If legal barriers are removed, the cost is allowed to decrease dramatically. This is due to a market being created around the drugs, which will lead to lower costs, more consumption, and more addiction. RAND notes that the legalization of marijuana in California would cause the cost to decrease by 80%. It even says that the cost could decrease more because of advertising and de-stigmatization [17]. Lower price=greater use. Simple market forces.


Because there will be greater usage of drugs, there will be more crime, as approximately 60% of individuals arrested for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest [37]. This will cause more money to go to prison and add to the $181 billion per year that drugs cost society [16]. This point from my opponent fails.

"Besides, tobacco and alcohol aren't much better than other substances, so if the US wants to make drugs illegal, then they might as well ban tobacco and alcohol as well."

The problem with this argument is that it will cause us to exacerbate the situation with drugs. As demonstrated in source 16, illegal drugs cost society $181 billion per year in lost productivity, crime and health, while the legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol cost society $378 billion per year annually. Legalizing any more drugs will exacerbate the situation, and it would be better to maintain the status quo and stigmatize the usage of these legal drugs.


My Case:

While I don't need a case, as I don't have the BOP, I will present one anyway.


If drugs were legal, more people would have the inclination to use them, thus increasing the chance that they will become addicts themselves [17]. Having more addicts and legal drugs does increase the chance of a crime being committed, or harms occurring costing society in the end. Also, if addicts are able to use drugs more often due to legalization, while they may get their fix, they are still going to spend money fueling their addiction, abusing more drugs and degrading their health, which will come back to sting us all through health care costs, crime and welfare. Legalization will bring very negative results in the end.

Synthetic Drugs:

SD’s are some of the most deadly drugs on the market and should never be legalized. They cause a large amount of devastating effects on people. SD's cause "...seizures, hallucinations, suicidal tendencies and attempts, homicidal tendencies, delusions, overstimulation, aggression, paranoia, chest pain, heart attack, overheating that causes a person to tear off his clothes, self-destructive behavior like bashing one's body or head against walls [or even, in most instances,] death" [20].

While these harms are dangerous and obviously something people want to avoid, empirical evidence [7, 17] shows that people will use drugs more often, even if the harms are know. This can be seen with Colorado [23] and animal experiments [29]. Synthetic drugs will be used far more when allowed and legalized, damaging people’s livelihood and burdening costs upon society. There can be no benefit from these drugs being consumed more or being legal.

Conclusion:

I have successfully refuted all of Pro's points and brought forward my own to show that the legalization of all drugs is a net negative on society and should not be adopted. Pro fails to fulfill his BOP and thus fails the debate.


The resolution is negated.

Vote Con.


Sources:
http://www.debate.org...


Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Reported vote: pyevchik // Moderator action: removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con overall had better arguments

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain sources, conduct, S&G. Failure to explain *why* Con had better arguments.
===================================================================
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Oh lol. No need to apologise. I'm not owed anything here.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
Haha, sorry about that, Zarroette!
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Damn. I just clicked accept. Must have been 10 seconds after you did. Damn you Pro for not writing one sentence opening arguments. I would have accepted instantly, otherwise.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
You better give this more rounds or you're going to lose very fast.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
Bagelz4All21jzonda415Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con rebuttal was comprehensive and went beyond the calling of negation. Being a one round debate, it's Pro's own fault that he/she in unable to counter-counterargue against Con counter-arguments. They needed addressing, and since they weren't addressed, Con wins the debate. Con also wins sources by a landslide. Not only did Pro provide none, but Con provided *35*, all of which made his arguments comprehensive.
Vote Placed by pyevchik 1 year ago
pyevchik
Bagelz4All21jzonda415Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con overall had better arguments
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Bagelz4All21jzonda415Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con systematically rebutted Pro's case, used 30 sources