The Instigator
fenderjazzerguy
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
policydebategod
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Should drugs be legal through sale by the federal government?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,551 times Debate No: 847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

fenderjazzerguy

Pro

I am 100% against just blindly legalizing every single drug for sale by private corporations, but I think the federal government should be involved. My theory is this: If crime rates and abuse rates for drugs are so high, isn't something the federal government doing wrong? This is a statistic from the Cocaine section of the 2008 edition of the National Drug Threat Assessment: "NDTS data show that nationally, the percentage of state and local agencies that identified cocaine as the drug that most contributed to violent crime (46.9%) and property crime (40.9%) was much higher than for any other drug." These rates are very high. Most politicians say that making stricter policies, more funding towards drug education, and more funding in enforcement is the right way to fight drugs. As you can see, the reoccurring theme is funding, which means money, which means high taxes, and which means unhappy citizens. This cannot be the only way to fight drugs. In my mind, the reason I believe all this crime is happening is because of the cost of drugs. According to Time Magazine a gram of cocaine is $100. Drug addicts aren't stupid, they just made a stupid choice; a choice which costs them $36.5k a year (if their habit is a gram a day). People can't support themselves or their families with this habit, drug lords have these people so hooked that they can skyrocket prices, and we all can see their plan is working. So, why does the federal government not see any other solutions to this? Well, the one obvious solution I see is to control the sale. Currently, the power of the drug trade lies in the hands of drug dealers, and in the end drug lords. Why doesn't the government sell drugs at a reduced cost? This way the addicts can actually afford the drugs. Now instead of taxing citizens to pay for drug enforcement and education, a portion of the drugs sold will go to these agencies. Some may ask, "Well, how does this affect crime rate?" The answer is since that drug prices are lower, less people will resort to crime to obtain drug money. This now lowers the crime rate for crimes related with drugs. Even the countries we buy the drugs from will benefit. Some money will go back to the farmers so they can grow food crops. Through government cooperation in these countries, we can assure the growth of these food crops. You now may ask, "Isn't this advocating drug use?" Well it's not. The government wouldn't be dancing around preaching drugs are good; they'd be saying "Drugs are bad, but we aren't going to shun you out of society because you made a bad decision." With this new mentality we can approach addicts, because we will have a record of who they are; now we can to say to them, "We know you have a problem, please accept our help." Now the power is in the federal government's hands, one central power makes a decision. The drug lords don't have the power now, and now the federal government has the power. We now have the power to bring change, bring goodness, bring hope, bring new opportunities, to bring a future for the millions of addicts in our country. They are citizens, people, Americans, and let's start treating them more like that.
policydebategod

Con

Nobody is for blindly legalising drugs but rather the government making tax revenue off of it. Can I debate you with that position?
Debate Round No. 1
fenderjazzerguy

Pro

My debate is posed as this. The federal government sells drugs, so there really isn't any tax revenue being made. It is the government selling it directly.
policydebategod

Con

Your point would NEVER happen because nobody would let it pass. This is my argument to your point.

Privatization is the best avenue of anything. The government craps up everything. Tax revenue is good and wonderful.

And thats all Ive got to say about that.
Debate Round No. 2
fenderjazzerguy

Pro

Well, nice debate. You barely made the 100 character minimum. I don't see a point in arguing when you didn't even make a point.
policydebategod

Con

I UNDERSTAND THAT I SAID VERY LITTLE IN THIS DEBATE BUT ILL EXPLAIN WHY I WON THIS DEBATE IN THESE NEXT STATEMENTS:
I MADE TWO GOD POINTS:
PRIVATIZATION IS THE BEST AVENUE FOR EVERYTHING. THIS POINT WAS NOT EVEN RESPONDED TO WHEN HE HAD AMPLE OPPURTUNITY. THIS MEANS THAT HE OBVIOUSLY AGREES WITH THE POINT.
I ALSO STATED THAT CONGRESS WOULD NEVER PASS HIS PLAN AND INSTEAD OF REFUTING IT HE SIMPLY CONGRATULATED ME ON A NICE DEBATE.

IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS:
I WIN THIS DEBATE BECAUSE THE TWO POINTS I MADE [WEAK OR NOT] WERE NOT EVEN RESPONDED TO. IN ACTUALLY DEBATE, IN ALL FORMS OF ACTUAL DEBATE, IF A POINT IS NOT ANSWERED TO THEN THE POINT IS AGREED TO. ANY ACTUAL DEBATE JUDGE SHOULD VOTE FOR ME BECAUSE HE AGREES WITH MY TWO, STRONGER POINTS.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
pdg - Why would I want the government to make more money? That's the exact opposite of my goal. "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
Posted by fenderjazzerguy 9 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
You want me to comment on your points. Fine:

1) Privatization is not good because then you will have hundreds of companies selling the drugs. The government doesn't have direct access or control over the sale of the drugs. This is exactly like how we have a drug problem now. The money is going into the hands of the wrong people. Instead of drug lords getting the money it's CEOs. Then on top of the companies price of the drug you'll have a federal tax. Only the federal government should sell the drugs, one central power, one central source. Everyone will benefit most from this way of operation.

2) Tax revenue is good, but people don't like taxes. My method avoids taxing altogether.
Posted by rclinken 9 years ago
rclinken
If I'm voting on the issues alone the I would have to support the "con. (I'm opposed to the legalization and sale of any drug by the federal government). But since I'm voting on who won the debate then I'll have to vote for fenderjazzer guy. All caps and incoherent sentences arent the way to win a debate.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
"- i dont think you should vote on the fact that i used all caps. maybe you should vote on the content. think of that?
- saying it would nvr happen is a prime argument in actual debate. we call it a politics disadvantage. it means that it wont happen so dont bother.
- this is considered one of the best points in debate and if the opposite cant prove against it they automatically lose"

Whatever rules you are going by, get adjusted to the fact that nobody is using them here. That's just how it is. SORRY:(

Also, it might be better if you let the people voting decide who won instead of telling them "IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS..." and talking about "actual debates" and such. This *was* the actual debate. And if you keep your all-caps, rant-style of writing, people here will eventually just vote against you, totally regardless of content, because it's annoying. You know this.
Posted by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
"- i dont think you should vote on the fact that i used all caps. maybe you should vote on the content. think of that?"

I would like to know who you are addressing that too. I going to make an educated guess and say you are addressing that to me. If you payed attention to my other reasons you'd realize it wasn't my only reason, ever think of that?
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
CAPS in a debate is like shouting. In a real debate you woulodn't shout at the judge. They would most likely disqualify you. They wouldn't give a rats a$$ about your comments.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
- i dont think you should vote on the fact that i used all caps. maybe you should vote on the content. think of that?
- saying it would nvr happen is a prime argument in actual debate. we call it a politics disadvantage. it means that it wont happen so dont bother.
- this is considered one of the best points in debate and if the opposite cant prove against it they automatically lose
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
The issue aside, I agree with Partyboat. PLEASE don't ever use all caps through an entire debate - people will form a low opinion of you and eventually no one will bother. Also, at least know what you're doing when you accept a debate; if the issue isn't the one you're looking for, simply don't accept it: don't waste a round by trying to figure out what you're debating, it's already there in the challenge.
Posted by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
Policydebategod, maybe you should reread the segment, since it says he is against blindly legalizing all drugs. Also all caps are highly unnecessary and actually make you look stupid. Also your point in saying it would never happened is a half cracked answer. That doesn't even prove anything he said is wrong. By saying it would never happen is like putting your hands over your head screaming I'm not listening, when someone says something you don't like. Also one round you prefer to ask a question instead of actually refuting anything he said.

It boils down to this:

I think you lose since you:

A) Barely addressed anything he said.
B) You deemed using all caps on your final round necessary.
C) Even when you addressed problems you never backed them up.

That is why you lose.
Posted by AdamCW12 9 years ago
AdamCW12
Well the con is right it would never pass through congress.... But the aff is right that if the Gov did do it it would work so..... I dont know which way to vote....
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheOster 9 years ago
TheOster
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dorobo 9 years ago
dorobo
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by fenderjazzerguy 9 years ago
fenderjazzerguy
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rclinken 9 years ago
rclinken
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by AdamCW12 9 years ago
AdamCW12
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aaeap2 9 years ago
aaeap2
fenderjazzerguypolicydebategodTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03