Should illegal drugs be legalised?
Debate Rounds (3)
My first argument is that when people take illegal drugs nowadays, most of them are fine. The vast majority of them will not become addicted. The vast majority of them enjoy it responsibly. It is the ones that go overboard that make the news and give the image that anyone who uses the drug is in inevitable danger. But why should everyone not be allowed to take the drug just because some people are too irresponsible with their drugs? We don't criminalize alcohol and tobacco, even though they claim the lives of a higher proportion of their users than illegal drugs do. I never understood why people will accept tobacco and alcohol legality even though some will overdo it and damage their bodies but for whatever reason drugs illegal now they want it to be kept illegal, even though illegal drugs in general pose a smaller threat.
Just because some people have problems with it and become addicted and/or use it irresponsibly, as it is not fair on the majority of people who use it responsibly. It would not be fair to the mother drinking a glass of red wine on a friday night to not enjoy that privilege because some guy drank way too much and ended up in hospital, so why is that the case for illicit drugs?
This brings me to my second point. I am not denying that illegal drugs can be addictive and am not denying people become addicted from it. Those in today society cannot come forward with their problem because they become punished for it. There are plenty of organisations who have helped smokers and heavy drinkers become clean and many people approach them because there is no punitive measure for doing so. I can guarantee you today many people who seriously need help getting off the drugs will not because it will have them end up in prison. They need our help.
My third point is that many who die from illegal drugs die due to tainted drugs or from drugs that are way more potent than they expected. When you buy drugs illegally you NEVER know whats in them. People die from drugs that are usually similar to but not actually Ecstasy, cocaine etc and others die from extremely potent drugs. Some people don't know how much you are supposed to take and die from an overdose. Legalizing and regulating it means that drugs that are then bought legally would have recommended limits like alcohol does. It also ensures the drug is actually what it says it is and that it is not tainted before it is sold. It gives users advice on how much to take. And again, those who overdo it will be allowed to seek help without fear of punishment.
Another argument is that it will save billions upon billions regarding government spending enforcing these laws. So many people are in prison for drugs. Not only is money saved from non-incarceration, but the tax revenue that stems from the legalised sales as well, which could be used to fund programs created for those looking to get off the drugs. More jobs would be created, and even more tax from the income of those jobs as well. It will also cut profits from dangerous gangs, who more often than not have cheaply made illegal drugs sold as their primary source of income. They kill rob and kidnap over the profitability of the drug. Even when one drug gang is taken out, another steps in, as the demand is always there. More supply via legal means will make a dent in their profit, managing to impair their ability and resources to carry out all the illegal activities they do. No-one not even concerned parents would be more opposed to drug legalization than drug dealers would.
When alcohol was prohibited in the USA from 1920-1933 for example, the black market for alcohol provided a financial basis for the mafia to flourish. Theft,burglaries, homicide, assault drug addiction and police department costs all rose, as the mafia wrecked havoc to maintain profits. Those with alcohol problems had nowhere to turn to, not until 1935 with alcoholics anonymous. The advancements of industrialization were effectively reversed. It is no different for illegal drugs, like the crack epidemic that took hold in the USA and the seemingly never-ending drug wars in Latin america which has wrecked havoc for centuries. And even when we take down some of these drug gangs, others spring up. People will do anything for money. There was nothing successful about alcohol prohibition, so what makes us think drug prohibition as we know it today will be any different? Why do we think it would work? Why not legalize drugs as we know it, like they did with alcohol and tobacco, especially given that alcohol and tobacco claim a higher proportion of their users lives than illicit drugs do?
Why not do what america did in 1930, legalize the illegal drug, regulate it, tax it, give addicts a place to go without fear of punishment, dent criminal profits in the meantime, reducing crime. Drug prohibition did not work in 1920-1933 regarding alcohol, and it has not worked and will not work with other drugs.
I would like to first address each of the arguments my opponent presents. Then I would like to make some points of my own afterwards. I look forward to a good debate! :)
VS. #1. One of my opponents arguments is that since alcohol and tobacco are legal and are MORE harmful than some illegal drugs (allegedly) that therefore the LESS HARMFUL illegal drugs should be legal. That is a logical fallacy, to make something that is harmful legal. What would be more logical would be to make all of the other dangerous substances illegal ALSO, thus making society safer in all ways.
*legal (prescription) drugs vs. illegal drugs (a side point to address)
The same argument applies as to the making alcohol or tobacco illegal...If 'presciption' drug abuse is a problem ALSO, then that ALSO should be looked at and considered how to stop those problems ALSO...the argument does nothing to lessen the danger of the illegal drugs we are debating about.
A second point my opponent brings up is the 'fairness' issue, I would reframe the same question of how is it 'fair' to an INNOCENT VICTIM? who is harmed by EITHER a drunk or a drug user. How is that "fair" to any innocent victim who simply is harmed because someone else didn't have the self control or necessary reaction time to avoid hurting them? The PRIORITY of "FAIRNESS" should be given to the INNOCENT above any other considerations of those who may harm them.
VS. #2. There is AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) for recovering alcoholics, and there are programs to help smokers quit. I'm not sure if my opponent is aware but there definitely are also programs and organizations that are designed to help drug addicts recover. One of the mostly widely known is NA (Narcotics Anonymous).
"Today, NA members hold more than 61,000 meetings weekly in 129 countries. We offer recovery from the effects of addiction through working a twelve-step program, including regular attendance at group meetings. The group atmosphere provides help from peers and offers an ongoing support network for addicts who wish to pursue and maintain a drug-free lifestyle." 
Also my opponent's link is dead, there is nothing on that page related to illegal drugs. If my opponent wishes to relink the website again, I would be happy to take a look at it.
VS. #3. The more potent drugs are even MORE dangerous it is true, BUT we need to remember that the first drugs were even dangerous enough to have the people decide to make them illegal (even the less powerful version of the drugs). I think it is a very common misconception that people think it is mostly occasional drug users getting snatched up and filling the prisons to overflowing, but I think that almost none are in for using drugs a single time, many people are in prison for things such as drug trafficking or manufacturing drugs.
*But the real matter we should be examining is this: *if (ALL) these alleged drug users who are in prison now, for breaking the law, a law which is PROTECTING THE INNOCENT PEOPLE in society from harm...what if ALL those many druggies were suddenly released onto the streets again? Sure maybe some money might be saved, but at what cost? To have freeways filled with people driving under the influence of drugs? (or whatever other stupid things they were doing before when they got caught the FIRST time...or caught AGAIN) what if they go right back to doing the exact stupid thing they were doing on the outside (endangering other innocent people?) before they got arrested for it in the first place. Sure we can let the drug users out and save money, but it would come at a very real cost of less safety! Keeping dangerous people in prison is well worth the cost.
My opponent also put this argument under #3, but I will address it here as a separate argument:
VS. #4. My opponent has brought up another very common misconception. He claims that prohibition 'did not work', but that is not what the facts show. During Prohibition alcohol use went down by 30%-50%. That is VERY EFFECTIVE, in other words it DOES WORK. "...alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929" AND "Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.". I mean it is only logical, that if something is illegal and harder to get, then it will be used less.
As far as the alleged increase of violence because of prohibition -- it did not happen " it remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after." 
*But even if it had increased I would then bring up this point: I would invite my opponent and the readers to consider if the increase of violence by a bit was more damaging OR if the tens of thousands of documented deaths caused by alcohol (drunk driving) is a BIGGER cause of death?! The statistics show clearly that there are many fold more DEATHS due to alcohol being legal.
Now for my points:
1. There is a reason(s) why the illegal drugs were made illegal in the first place, because they can be dangerous and harmful.
My opponent conceded by acknowledging in his opening statement, that drug abuse is indeed a widespread problem!
In another of his own statements my opponent also acknowledges that illegal drugs can be addictive and does not deny that people become addicted from it.
With regards to these things, nothing has really changed since those early laws against illegal drugs were put in place (other than perhaps the drugs have become even more potent and even more dangerous - noted by my opponent also). I suppose also what has changed is the increased immorality of the people, thinking selfishly that only their right to 'have a good time' counts.
The laws are in place to prevent situations like this:
Julie Jorgenson (a young woman who was pursuing her MBA) was killed by a man high on illegal drugs. She was killed when Shane Roy Gillette decided to smoke (just) marijuana then once he got high he got into his truck, (not even bothering to put on socks, shoes, or a shirt) and having nowhere to go...then he drove 70 mph (in a 30 mph zone) and didn't even try to stop and slammed into the back of Julie's vehicle. Her body was burned so bad after the accident that it took 2 weeks to even identify her. 
That is just one example, there are many other cases where illegal drug use is shown to harm the users themself, or other innocent victims.
2. Innocent People are the real victims/ real reason for the laws to exist. My opponent in the first round seemed to like to focus on the harm that comes to the user themselves,, yes that is harmful and should be warned about (by laws) but that is not the only harm that illegal drugs harm cause It is not even the main consideration in fact!
What illegal drugs do is to cause people to violate the "Non aggression principle" (the right a person has to do something IF it doesn't harm others)---> BUT if a person loses control then they don't KNOW WHAT they will do! Thus endangering (or actually hurting or even killing other innocent people) = the actual violation of the principle, since it does affect others because they harm others.
No one sets out the evening PLANNING that they will lose control and go hurt or kill an innocent victim...but the very nature of the illegal drugs is that they make people LOSE CONTROL of their decision making, which can lead to ANY OUTCOME (even dangerous, foolish, or deadly outcomes)...because reason and logic fade away (due to the illegal drugs altering brain and body functions).
3. The Government has a duty to warn people of danger. For example: If there is a bridge out, there is a duty to warn drivers to not go that way and actually put a roadblock or some other barricade to keep the people safe...or else someone could be hurt or die due to their negligence of not putting for the warning sign and barricade, and they might very well be liable and perhaps get sued.
Likewise the government has a duty to warn the people of illegal drugs and the dangers associated with them, and also put up barriers (laws) to stop the dangerous situation, with the intent to keep people safe. To protect LIFE, liberty and property is a correct function of government.
For all these many reasons illegal drugs should remain illegal.
 Narcotics Anonymous: http://www.na.org...
 Actually Prohibition was a Success - New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com...
 Julie Jorgenson killed by driver high on marijuana: http://www.sltrib.com...
http://www.bbc.co.uk... This is the link I meant to send. Also out of curiosity are you therefore against tobacco and alcohol legalization? I was looking for someone who wanted those two to remain legal and nothing else to become legal but that is OK.
Id like to point out that just because it is illegal does not mean it is harmful. There are numerous illegal drugs that are literally risk free. Apart from DUI marijuana is practically safe, as long as its real marijuana. Same goes for LSD and magic mushrooms.The threat from ecstasy usually comes from ecstasy tablets containing something else that isn't MDMA. Id like to point out a "tough on drugs/crime" stance was extremely popular in electoral candidates decades ago, effectively banning any new drug that came about.
The popular illegal drugs we know today do not cause the aggression you think happens. Illegal drug use tends to affect the user way more than the surrounding public unlike alcohol and tobacco. Endangering others tends usually to be DUI. DUI on drugs is a problem and does exist and obviously I think that should be illegal. Id further like to point that case happened in 2011, not August 2014, Most drugs give a euphoric feeling of well-being and happiness, whether that is a relaxed or an energetic euphoric feeling is dependent on the drug.
When you talked about the person who killed someone while high Id like to point out a couple of more things. First off marijuana legalization is somewhat inevitable one way or another across the USA and the western world. Id also like to point out how dry counties in america have more driving accidents as their residents have to go elsewhere to get alcohol, and they end up coming back into their resident county drunk and behind the wheel, which wouldnt be the case if they could walk to the bar down the road.According to research "dry counties had a fatality rate in drunk driving accidents of 6.8 per 10,000 people. Conversely, wet counties had 1.9 per 10,000 people."
Kelleher, Kelly (1997). Drug Abuse Research "Social and Economic Consequences of Rural Substance Abuse". MD: NHI. p. 196.
I can assure you the same will happen in dry marijuana counties, getting high elsewhere and driving back to dry counties high and causing accidents. Id also like to point out that when taking mushrooms or LSD the last thing that is on your mind is driving, ecstacy is usually taken at raves etc. And legalizing drugs increasing the risk to other people is assuming that legalisation will increase drug usage. That is not a certainty. Usage of cannabis among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent used cannabis, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent, according to an annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, using latest available figures.
Decriminalization in portugal also saw drug use among adolescents (13-15 yrs) and "problematic" users decline ...
Hughes, Caitlin; Stevens, Alex (2010-07-21), British Journal of Criminology (Oxford University Press) 50 (6): 1014, doi:10.1093/bjc/azq038
...and a reduction in drug related deaths
Hughes, Caitlin; Stevens, Alex (December 2007), The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal, Briefing Paper 14, Oxford: Beckley Foundation
Cannabis use decreased in the UK when the classification of the drug was downgraded
Travis, Alan (2007-10-26). "Cannabis use down since legal change". London: The Guardian (UK)
These positive aspects might be helped further with legalization.
Id also like to point out whilst I'm aware those in NA are huge numbers, there is no denying that many drug addicts in the world wont seek help as doing so could land them in prison.
Coming back to VS. #3 Id like to point out that yes it is drug users more than drug sellers who are incarcerated, in 2012 82.2% of those incarcerated for drug offences were incarcerated for drug possession alone. That figure does not differ much from other years.
And to your argument about what would happen if you release drug users. Those addicted and co-operatively seek help and show progress shouldn't be a problem any more. Those arrested for DUI with drugs could have their licenses removed, like drunk driving does. Again an increase in DUI's are assuming legalization will increase usage.
And that article about the success of prohibition fails to mention where it got this information from. Journalistic reports on stats are supposed to tell the viewers just where they got this information from. From looking it up it appears consumption and cirrhosis did decrease, although i only saw a 10-20% figure decrease in the latters rate. It is worth noting that many people who do not drink develop cirrhosis, and the vast majority of heavy drinkers never develop it
Wine Institute, Wine and Medical Practice, 10th ed. (San Francisco: Wine Institute, 1979); cited in Ford, p. 79.
The most telling sign of the relationship between serious crime and Prohibition was the dramatic reversal in the rates for robbery, burglary, murder, and assault when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. That dramatic reversal has Marxist and business-cycle crime theorists puzzled to this day. For example, sociologist John Pandiani noted that "a major wave of crime appears to have begun as early as the mid 1920s and increased continually until 1933 . . . when it mysteriously reversed itself."Theodore Ferdinand also found a "mysterious" decline that began in 1933 and lasted throughout the 1930s. How could they miss the significance of the fact that the crime rate dropped in 1933?. My increased crime figures come from
Charles Hanson Towne (1923). The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States. New York: Macmillan. p. 159"62.
Im going to conclude this by stating your argument has two core assumptions.
1) That illegal drugs cause some sort of manic aggression, which is not the case in all popular drugs except alcohol
2) That legalisation of drugs would increase consumption rates. The only country that data was available for that had legalised marijuana had a lower consumption rate of marijuana compared to the rest of the europe.
Id like to finally conclude by asking your opinion on the quality control arguement I stated in regards to making sure sold drugs were untainted, had recommended and stated dosage etc/
My opponent stated "Id like to point out that just because it is illegal does not mean it is harmful. There are numerous illegal drugs that are literally risk free."
---> My opponent is speaking here pretty much exclusively about harm to the user of the drug again, not speaking about innocent victims - but the innocent bystanders cannot simply be ignored when considering this issue....you can't just say "Apart from DUI marijuana is practically safe" (which PRO says)....because what the illegal drug users DO after getting high DOES affect other people!! This thing they do is not always kept in the closet, there are too many accidents, deaths, robberies and other crimes related to and caused by illegal drugs. And that is one of the main points my opponent cannot
rebut, because there is not a rebuttal for it, it causes pain, sorrow, and even death to those who are innocent in many cases...which is not right, just, or fair.
But to address the point he makes about personally injuring the user - there are negative effects on the user ALSO --up to and including death! They are definitely NOT "risk free"! Here are some things that happen, and have happened, to a person's body and mind when they take/took illegal drugs:
LSD: Ethan Rickman - age 14 died from an LSD overdose - he was "a bright, talented, fun-loving young man who played in a band,"
Earlier this month, police in northern California seized several different kinds of illegal drugs after breaking up a wild house party in which a teenager reportedly spit blood at emergency personnel and used "superhuman strength" to block responders from entering.
Last week, a Tennessee man who allegedly took synthetic drugs claimed he was "a god" and jumped from a building multiple times. Even after responders got a hold of him, officers said that the man continued trying to hurt himself, and yelled at police to kill him with a "shotgun to the face."
In September, the horrific homemade drug krokodil was reported for the first time in the U.S. with two related cases in Arizona. The "flesh-eating" drug, which in some cases reportedly causes users' flesh to rot off the bone, was also reported outside Chicago this week.
A naked NYU freshman high on hallucinogenic mushrooms plunged to his death from the roof of his dorm in the East Village early Monday " the first day of the spring semester, cops and witnesses said. Titan Lee-Hai, 18, plummeted 15 stories from the Third North Residence Hall at 75 Third Ave. near East 11th Street at about 3:20 a.m., police and witnesses told The Post.
A college student visiting Denver jumped to his death from a hotel balcony after eating marijuana-infused cookies, Levy Thamba, a 19-year-old student at Northwest College in Powell, Wyo., died last month at a Holiday Inn in northeast Denver. On Wednesday, the Denver coroner released a report concluding that Thamba's death was caused by "multiple injuries due to a fall from height." The coroner also listed "marijuana intoxication" from cannabis-infused cookies as a significant condition contributing to the death.
Ecstasy: Taking Ecstasy can cause liver failure, as in the case of a 14-year-old girl who died of this, despite an attempt by doctors to save her with a liver transplant. Ecstasy is sometimes mixed with substances such as rat poison. Young people have died from dehydration, exhaustion and heart attack as a result of taking too much Ecstasy. It can cause kidney, liver and brain damage, including long-lasting lesions on brain tissue. Even a small amount of Ecstasy can be toxic enough to poison the nervous system and cause irreparable damage.
Moving on to another point my opponent stated: "I can assure you the same will happen in dry marijuana counties, getting high elsewhere and driving back to dry counties high and causing accidents."
--> Most people living in the USA would not bother to drive across the border to another country to get drugs legally, but rather would most likely just have their 'drug dealers' handle all the logistical/transportation issues. If it is legal in one county [notice word = county here and not 'country']...and not another county = that simply makes a good point to make it illegal in BOTH counties! ...make them go to another country entirely...which again most people won't do themself.
Another one of my opponent's quotes: "Id also like to point out that when taking mushrooms or LSD the last thing that is on your mind is driving,"
---> There are also MANY other negative ways that people on drugs affect other innocent people BESIDES by their impaired driving! Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user"s behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking.
Criminal statistics collected from the US Dept. of Justice shows that:
1. Between 40%-60% of inmates were on drugs at the time of their offense.
2. Violent crimes by those under the influence of drugs was reported at 26.1% vs. those who had no drugs at 2.7%.
3. 13%-17% of crimes committed were done in order to FUND a drug habit.
Conclusion from the US Dept. of Justice:
The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees and inmates were often under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drug trafficking generates violence.
As far as Prohibition: my opponent stated "From looking it up it appears consumption and cirrhosis did decrease, although i only saw a 10-20% figure decrease in the latters rate."
---> Your own source corroborated the fact that the consumption of alcohol did in fact DECREASE, the % may be disputed, however, the main point is simply that when you make something illegal (or 'Prohibited' in other words) that it is used LESS, which makes it an effective tool to use to reduce behaviors (like illegal drug use) that a society doesn't want, in other words 'Prohibition works', or 'Making laws against things works', in spite of what the commonly held misconceptions about Prohibition there are out there.
Another point: my opponent's quote "a major wave of crime appears to have begun as early as the mid 1920s and increased continually until 1933 . . . when it mysteriously reversed itself."
---> We can discuss that point with statistics if you would like to....I will cite how many deaths ALCOHOL causes per year now... AND for each year since it has been legalized... Because since that time, that action of repealing prohibition has had an effect each and every year since that time, now that alcohol is no longer illegal.
You can feel free to cite all the damage the 'increase in crime and violence' caused ---from the 'black market' of selling the illegal alcohol during that 14 year span of recorded data....and we can compare which was (and is) MORE HARMFUL to society. If you don't want to concede this point ---> go ahead and post your statistics next round of the terrible violence in those 14 years and then I will then post my alcohol death statistics for all the years since Prohibition and we can compare.
My opponent also thinks that legalisation of drugs would not increase consumption rates. he cites "The only country that data was available for that had legalised marijuana had a lower consumption rate of marijuana compared to the rest of the europe."
-->The data from Colorado since legalization of marijuana has shown that monthly use in Colorado increased by 22 percent! " as shown in the 2012-13 data.
I would also like some more follow up from my opponent on these issues which I don't feel were thoroughly addressed yet by him:
1. Do you agree that illegal drugs can cause a person to violate the 'Nonaggression Principle" or will they always be able to control themselves? if not what amount of damage to innocents is acceptable in your opinion?
2. Do you think that the right of an innocent person to be safe is more important than the right of a drug user to 'have a good time'? What if safety cannot be guaranteed to an innocent person unless the drug user doesn't take the illegal drugs at all?--in that situation -morally speaking - should the drug user not take the drugs? and if they refuse to abstain, should the government intervene and try to stop them?
3. Generally speaking, do you think that a law which has an increase in penalties and an increase in chances of the offender to get caught will reduce a particular behavior?
4. As far as the government-- would you agree that the government has more of a duty to protect the life and health of it's citizens than it has to ensure that the citizens are able to 'have a good time'?
I thank my opponent for his time and look forward to our final round!
Look at Danger No.1 to further my point http://www.drugfreeworld.org...
And according to that same website "Marijuana is sometimes combined with harder drugs. Joints are sometimes dipped in PCP, a powerful hallucinogen. PCP is a white powder, also available in liquid form, often used with cannabis. PCP is known for causing violent behavior and creating severe physical reactions including seizures, coma and even death" ANOTHER reason legalisation would help. Anyone who has problems from PCP in their marijuana would not have that problem if they managed to buy it legally. On the page about crystal meth it states that chemicals mixed with crystal meth "are potentially explosive and because the meth cooks are drug users themselves and disoriented, they are often severely burned and disfigured or killed when their preparations explode. Such accidents endanger others in nearby homes or buildings" as why you should avoid it. More destructive chemicals ever present in drugs. A proper coking environment which would prevent meth cooks from dying in accidents. Again, wouldn't occur in a regulated market. In fact the whole website constantly is reminding you of disgusting chemicals and other drugs present in the drugs people buy illegally.
Levy thamba, the guy who took marijuana infused cookies took 6.5X the amount of times the recommendad dosage that was labelled on the product. If he is going to ignore the needed warning signs that is his problem. It is not fair to those who do follow the recommended dosage. And at least people now in colorado know how much you are supposed to take, as opposed to black market no warning edibles.
In regards to your US Dept. of Justice statistics Id like to point out a few flaws.
That 40%-60% figure does not differentiate between people who used alcohol and those who used only drugs. It asks if you used drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. For all you know all of those crimes could be committed under the influence of only alcohol. That 26.1% figure again does not differentiate between people who used those drugs in the last year and people who were on the drugs at the time. You are not "on drugs" automatically if you have taken them even once in the past year. How would alcohol taken a year ago and none taken since cause you to be violent today? And people are gonna commit crime to fund any addiction. The best way around that is to legalise the drugs, prompting more addicts to come forward for help without fear of being punished!
I also counter your colorado marijuana consumption increase rate with a couple of links of my own saying it did not increase.
It is simply not established that legalisation caused an increase. Where legalisation or decriminalisation occurs around the world, there are plenty of stats to back up the theory that legalisation and/or decriminalisation simply does not cause an increase in usage rates, and often causes a decrease. Thus you cant assume drug legalisation will bring about harm to other people through increased usage rates. That is my response to points 1 and 2. To point 3, not necessarily and to point 4, it has to be mixed. The right to freedom and the health of the citizens have to both be upheld. Telling someone they cant become a daredevil or a rock climber just to preserve their health isnt suitable, so I dont see why that should be the case with alcohol and drugs
my opponent's strongest argument from Round 3 seemed to be this idea... (his statement):
"The drug is not always what you think you are getting. Re-read your article on Ethan Rickman and you will see it was a synthetic drug 'acid' that is NOT LSD but tries to mimic the same effects. He however thought it was LSD. That Tennessee guy was also on SYNTHETIC drugs. It is important to differentiate between copycat drugs and actual drugs."
---> Yes some of those links by CON dealt with mixtures of drugs. But even without the mixtures the illegal drugs have the same effects. When CON was pointing out the damage of illegal drugs (on the 'user' level) I just commented on some drugs that PRO had mentioned and pulled up some handy links... But CON didn't even bother to touch on the effects of the MORE DANGEROUS drugs such as crack, cocaine, heroin, meth, or new ones like 'molly' etc...because the principles behind what make the illegal drugs illegal remain the same!
Illegal drugs harm the users themselves and also innocent people and that is the reason the laws were implemented in the first place...The reason the laws were implemented in the first place had NOTHING to do with protecting people against drug MIXTURES with other ingredients---those didn't even exist at the time the laws were made...the illegal drugs pure and untainted at that time were found to be very harmful! IN THEIR PURE FORM!...and laws made against illegal drugs decreases the use of illegal drugs, therefore the laws should remain in place.
My opponents rebuttal: "That 40%-60% figure does not differentiate between people who used alcohol and those who used only drugs. It asks if you used drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. For all you know all of those crimes could be committed under the influence of only alcohol. That 26.1% figure again does not differentiate between people who used those drugs in the last year and people who were on the drugs at the time."
--->The other statistics I looked at also seem to group illegal drugs and alcohol together...making it difficult to discern how much of an increase was from the drugs and how much from the alcohol. I might have looked harder if PRO had contested the other 2 statistics, but as it is, CON will just be happy to take 2 out of the 3 points, since those other points were not contested.
My opponent's links "I also counter your colorado marijuana consumption increase rate with a couple of links of my own saying it did not increase"
--->As I was reading your first link......a video at the bottom of the page appeared: "Colorado becomes major exporter of pot" as a related story to view!...which I thought was funny! :)
The article you cited dealt with teens use only. AND it shows only one month...that is pretty easy data to cherry pick...just wait for the lowest month, and show that in the results.
If we were to look at colleges:
Universities and colleges in Colorado are experiencing an incredible spike in out-of-state applications, University of Colorado Director of Admissions Kevin MacLennan says that applications to the state-run university system are up 30 percent since Colorado passed Amendment 64! High Times website says that Colorado College Submissions are Up Because of Marijuana.
Also just in the general population (not necessarily students)
"In fact, the percentage of Coloradans over 12 who reported using marijuana in the previous month for the years 2012-13 rose to the second highest in the country " 12.7 percent " after Rhode Island."
ALSO an interesting side effect also happened-
"This is obviously disturbing " unless perhaps those responsible for the increase are cutting back on other recreational drugs. But as a matter of fact, the opposite seems to be true. The same federal survey shows the use of other drugs, as well as the use of alcohol and the non-medical abuse of pain relievers, ALSO INCREASED in Colorado during the same period," [added emphasis]
My opponent's response: "...Thus you cant assume drug legalisation will bring about harm to other people through increased usage rates. That is my response to points 1 and 2. To point 3, not necessarily and to point 4, it has to be mixed. The right to freedom and the health of the citizens have to both be upheld. Telling someone they cant become a daredevil or a rock climber just to preserve their health isnt suitable, so I dont see why that should be the case with alcohol and drugs"
---> 1. & 2. But the rate doesn't need to 'increase' even if the damage stays the exact same...that is still too much damage being done to innocent people.
3. Yes, looking into it more,...the philosophy of law can be very complex. Could be, or not, there seems to be too many factors to say which was the cause in many cases.
4. IF a rock climber or daredevil screws up...it will only hurt THEMSELF, not other innocent people, as would a drunk driver or person driving under the influence of illegal drugs. (Nonaggression Principle again)
My opponent offered an interesting topic and it was a fun debate. Con believes that most of Pro's points have been countered and also that Con has established many points which were not countered sufficiently by Pro.
Some of Con's main points that my opponent conceded/dropped/ or did not contest well enough include:
1. Dept. of Justice Statistics #2 Violent crimes are higher among drug users.
2. Dept. of Justice Statistic #3 The crimes drug offenders do in order to fund their habit.
3. The effectiveness of Prohibition and also rule of law in general in decreasing usage of drugs.
4. And especially the NON-Aggression Principle - PRO only addressed it in the lightest of ways, and took only harm into consideration if it was going to INCREASE...meaning PRO totally is ignoring the problems CURRENTLY that illegal drug use inflicts upon innocent people, and how wrong it is with regards to fairness to the innocent. PRO also never really rebutted the fact that illegal drugs DO take a person out of control of their decisions, and therefore it makes them dangerous to others (innocent people).
I believe CON has done enough to win the debate and would appreciate the reader's vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gannon260 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't do a good job negating con's arguments.
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.