The Instigator
CrazyRepublican
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

Should drugs be legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,047 times Debate No: 16322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

CrazyRepublican

Con

I'm looking for someone to debate the drug issue with, and I don't care who it is.

Drugs- A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.

Drugs are a very dangerous threat to the well being of people and society as a whole.

1) especially to teens who are just now starting out in life.Drugs do great damage to threir minds, snd capabilities as a person.

2) They destroy families, and they destroy the physical and mentalhealth of the people who use them. They also are very addictive and turn their users into slaves that can no longer think for themselves or go without the drug or drugs that they use.

Therefore for the good of the nation, society, and individual drugs should stay outlawed.

1) http://www.teendrugabuse.us......

2) http://www.justice.gov......
petersaysstuff

Pro

First off I thank my opponent for this chance to debate.

Nextly I want to contest my opponent's definition of "drugs". The legal definition of drug is as follows: "any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals."[1] meaning, if we go by my opponent's original advocacy that "...drugs should stay outlawed." he is advocating against medication. I assume what my opponent is arguing for is the outlawing of illicit drugs ie. Heroin, crack ect. If this is not what you are advocating please say so in the comments section. Based on this assumption I will be arguing that illicit drugs should be legalized and regulated.

Contention 1: When alcohol (a drug) was made illegal (an illicit drug) we saw an increase in gang activities, deaths and alcohol abuse. We must look to alcohol as a reference because it is the only wide spread example of prohibition (other than now) that was in effect in America and then repealed thus we can see the effects. During the era of prohibition alcohol consumption reached record numbers at 60-70% of what it was before alcohol was made illegal.[2] Also during this time we saw the spike in the mafia and crime rates increased dramatically. The total number of arrests in Philadelphia in 1920 was 73,015. This was the start of prohibition. In 1921 it was 83,136. 1922: 99,601. '23: 115,399... these trends continue.[3]
The following is a quote regarding deaths caused by alcoholism: " In New York City, from 1900 through 1909, there was an average of 526 deaths annually attributable to alcoholism. From 1910 through 1917, the average number was 619. It plummeted to 183 for the years 1918 through 1922. Thereafter, the figure rose, averaging a new high of 639 for the years 1923 through 1927."[4]

I could go on but I feel I have sufficiently made my point regarding prohibition but if need be I reserve the right to bring in more evidence regarding prohibition later in the round.

Contention 2: Illegal drugs fuel gangs and if regulated loss of life will decrease.

What is the main reason people get into gangs? Drugs. People get their drugs from gangs (the source of your drug supply is a gang) and the better the drug the more expensive it is and thus you will get addicted easier and keep buying it until you can't pay for the drug so you either a) steal or b) join them and sell drugs to pay off your debt. So the question naturally arises, why are drugs so expensive and why are they so addictive?

1: They are so expensive because the people in the gangs want to make money so they raise the price of drugs to extreme amounts and because there is minimal competition and high demand (due to their illegality), the people will buy them.

2: They are so addictive because there are no regulations on what is in them. They can be laced with anything and you wouldn't know. (To bring it back alcohol, when alcohol was illegal many people went blind because it wasn't regulated and the alcohol content was to high.)

If drugs were legal you could regulate what was in them (causing loss of life to drop) and you could set a standard price so people wouldn't have to pay extreme amounts. And because there would be competition, gangs would dwindle as has happened with the mafia after the prohibition era as well as our economy being helped.

So basically illicit drugs should become legal because, as history has shown, when things are completely illegal the use of them rises, gang violence rises ect.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://ideas.repec.org...
[3] http://www.druglibrary.org...
[4] http://www.druglibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 1
CrazyRepublican

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for pointing out my mistake.

1) Concerning your argument on prohibition, even though prohibition increased alcohol use this because the authorities were not as prepared as the mafia. While the mafia was armed with Thompson sub-machine guns and B.A.R.s the authorities were armed with revolvers and simple shotguns. There was also no federal law enforcement like there is now. The failure of prohibition was caused by the the failure of law enforcement to show more resolve in enforcing the law, also even though the repayment of prohibition decreased some of the crime it did not decrease alcohol use. Alcohol even today still causes hundreds of thousands of deaths.[1]

2) Gangs right now are the biggest source of illicit drugs, and also commit a large portion of the crimes(besides the drug users themselves) in the U.S. If drugs were legalized the gangs would still not follow the laws that would regulate their drugs people would choose them over whatever legitimate drug business, because the gang's drugs would be more potent then that of the legal drug sellers. Even though that taking out a few of the chemicals would make them a little bit safer to use, it would not change the fact that the drugs are still deadly to the brain and certain other vital organs with in the human body. Therefore regulation of drugs would not change the crime or the death rates.

In Conclusion,

The failure of prohibition was because the law enforcement were not only outgunned, but also lacked the leadership and will to enforce the law.

Regulation of illicit drugs would do little to solve gang violence, addiction, and death.

Vote Con

[1] http://wiki.answers.com...
petersaysstuff

Pro

First off let me say that in the comments my opponent said that weed should be legalized. (You probably shouldn't concede like that in the comments)

On my 1: The only argument that my opponent has against this is the claim that "the authorities were not as prepared as the mafia". This is just not true seeing as if you look to my evidence regarding the arrests this contradicts his argument. If what Crazy says is true then less arrests would have been made simply because "the authorities were not as prepared...". My opponent also claims that there was no federal law enforcement but if that were the case then there would be much fewer arrests but that is not true seeing as we saw some of the highest rates of arrest ever. My opponent then claims that after prohibition alcohol use did not decrease yet this is not true. They were higher then the rates before prohibition but they did drop from 60-70% to about 30% if I remember correctly. It is true that alcohol today does cause lots of deaths but not nearly as many as was caused during prohibition. During prohibition there were 639 deaths per year in New York alone plus the fact that the average during prohibition was that about 3 out of every 100,000 people would die just from alcohol. Also, during the same era we saw record high homicide rates as well as incarceration rates (again contradicting his mafia argument)[1] Another thing is the fact that the age that children first started drinking dropped 21 before prohibition to 20 during (this was the formation of habits ie alcoholism)[2]

On my 2: My opponent claims that if drugs were legalized the users would still go to gangs but this is not true at all. If we look back towards the end of prohibition guess what happened? People stopped buying from the mafia and their power diminished greatly. It is the exact same situation with gangs. People buy their drugs from gangs because that is the only place to buy them but if they were legalized, as history has shown, the gangs would decrease. Let it be noted that my argument regarding cost was dropped. My opponent then claims that regulation would not save people but doesn't even provide an analytic on this. He just says it whereas I show that in the past the same thing has happened with moonshine as is happening with modern day drugs.

Conclusion: My opponent is making unwarranted claims regarding the polices inability to stop the mafia when there were record arrests... my opponent also claims that people would still go to gangs to get their drugs but this is ignoring history as shown above and my opponent has dropped my cost argument hence I see no reason to vote Con seeing as the only evidence he has provided is a wikianswers question and some shoty analytics. I await my opponent's response :)

[1] http://www.druglibrary.org...
[2] http://www.druglibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 2
CrazyRepublican

Con

First off, I would like to say that From the beginning of this debate I was half con and half pro. Some drugs arn't really bad at all.

Second, upon reading my opponants well thought out, and rather convincing debate. Not to minchin my vain attempt to refute it. I have decided to wave the white flag on this debate. lol :P
petersaysstuff

Pro

Sounds cool! I thank my opponent for this debate. Vote Pro.

~~Peter
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by bsberry12 3 years ago
bsberry12
Drugs should not be legal because they do a lot of bad things to the body. It can cause brain damage and you forget things that happened to you before you took the drug. When you take the drug people get into bqd situations because they are not thinking right. It affects many things in your body and is just not healthy.
Posted by petersaysstuff 3 years ago
petersaysstuff
jwhill, care to debate it?
Posted by jwhill 3 years ago
jwhill
Drugs should not be legalized. Why should it, it's enough drug use this the U.S. alone. It's taking over teenage lives. The teens that are coming up to be in this world is what this world depends on. The future on us. With drug in our way we can't make America a better place. NO A GOOD IDEA.
Posted by CrazyRepublican 3 years ago
CrazyRepublican
its a good thing i was for drug legalization from the start lol but not for the reasons petersaysstuff wrote down. it think people should be able to make their own life choices, not the government.
Posted by CrazyRepublican 3 years ago
CrazyRepublican
I think weed should be legalized, but as for the others they do a lot of damage to people.
Posted by Prodigy35 3 years ago
Prodigy35
Drug must be legalized if corruption and stupid government spending are to decrease
Posted by CrazyRepublican 3 years ago
CrazyRepublican
I mean illicit drugs
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 3 years ago
DylanAsdale
CrazyRepublicanpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CrazyRepublicanpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con, however done with class.
Vote Placed by bigpoppajustice 3 years ago
bigpoppajustice
CrazyRepublicanpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 3 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
CrazyRepublicanpetersaysstuffTied
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 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 fore-fitted. Also landslide.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 3 years ago
quarterexchange
CrazyRepublicanpetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con recanted his position