The Instigator
SyndIca
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
EOTCfan516
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should illegal 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,561 times Debate No: 30630
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

SyndIca

Pro

First let me define the argument as it is stated above. Should illegal drugs be legalized? Lets allow that illegal drugs doesn't just mean the run of the mill pot, cocaine, heroine, It also means drugs not many people realize are being regulated such as BZP, some research chems, and mephadrone. the term 'be legalized' means that through a series of laws and regulations by either a federal or local government, the drugs become widely available via OTC methods or prescription. My first argument is simply to what extent do the government need to 'nanny' us everything we consume? I could go out, buy a can of drano, prepare a big fat line, and tell my whole family I was about to snort it to kill myself, and if anyone tried to do anything about it I could have them arrested for assault or destruction of property. Yet someone who is in the privacy of their own home cannot buy a bag of cocaine or meth or adderall, because our government says, well it's bad for you, so we must keep you from feeling good at the known cost of your own health. There's always the argument that people will do it and not know its bad for you, to that I say, look what Europe has done with cigarettes, they put a big picture of a smokers gross teeth on the package and say 'this will be you if you smoke these' and smoking has gone down. My question is who, being a brand new user of harder drugs, would walk Into a CVS, see a Baggie of 'Grandma Joe's methamphetamine' containing a list of chemicals that all sound worse than bleach, and with a picture of a meth head on it that say 'this will be you if you use this drug' and will say, "wow I want to try that one!" Seems highly unlikely. There's always the argument that drug addicts overreact while on the drugs, to obtain the drugs. Well, drunk drivers drive cars drunk, do we stop selling cars or only sell cars that go 25MPH to make sure all the citizens are safe? No that's what police are for, and they're there to catch those stealing drug addicts too, drugs don't steal, people steal, so why keep the pleasure away from the millions who use and don't steal, to (non-effectively) try to bring down the drug related crime rate. And there's the argument that people will try it more if its legal, this may be true with pot, but who is going to say 'oh heroines FINALLY legal? Sweet I'm going to CVS guys see you in 10 years on Intervention.' This is a ludicrous argument as consumption among the Netherlands youth decreased after a few years of increase, it 'lost its coolness'. Sure tourists fly there to smoke pot but that's because we still have this mysterious mist around pot that its this cool rediculous thing, when in fact it's not. When I first tried pot I said 'this? This is what they warned me about for years and year and years? It makes me giggle and want to buy awful snack food?'. This also misleads youth that other harder drugs aren't that bad either because 'if the government lied about that, what else are they lying about?' And I will only say this once, DO NOT SAY POT IS A GATEWAY DRUG. Caffeine is a gateway drug, nicotine is a gateway drug, sudofed for a cold is a gateway drug, pot is the first ILLEGAL gateway drug usually, but who do you know that smoked pot before they had an energy drink, coffee, cigarette, or even fatty foods containing MSG and aspartame. Round 1 of 5 complete, please be as polite as possible in the rebuttals, thank you.
EOTCfan516

Con

Drugs will always be used, legally or illegally, this cannot be controlled. What can be controlled however is by what extent these drugs are used. The stigma behind drugs like cocaine and heroin is highest when the drugs are illegal, because we've got the government pounding us with the startling and over exaggerated facts about them and we've got the junkies and the crack heads to tell us how bad it is as well. The fact that we still have coke and heroin and methadone and crystal meth addicts after all the darkness surrounding it in its illegality shows that legalization won't stop people doing it. What legalization will do is make it easier for those people to gain access to these drugs, rather than being told "it's rehab, or nothing". If the law allows for these drugs for medicinal purposes, then the druggies will find a way to get the drugs. It's like in California, where weed is legal, anyone can go to a doctor there and say "my back is hurting, I can't sleep" and they get their medical marijuana card in a flash. Same will happen with heroin and cocaine, and that's only if it's legalized for medicinal use. Are you saying it should be totally legal? Available for purchase in high street shops? If that's the case then things will only get much worse. The government will charge even more than back alley dealers, making it a hugely profitable industry that will feed the greedy corporate giants and the politicians, and leach even more money from the tax payers as well as the druggies themselves, which in the end will just help to feed the capitalism and the unbalance of wealth that's currently bad enough. We'll have an abundance of addicts who are spending their unemployment benefits on more drugs until they eventually break down or die, which will lead to bad economy, families falling apart, money being sucked into government, and the world will be in a hell of a state.
Debate Round No. 1
SyndIca

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate topic, I hope it will be a fun and mind changing experience for one of us (I'm on this website to openly change my views on big issues, not to just defend them like most people).
1: First you say that it's good that these drugs are illegal, because then we have all the crackheads and junkies telling people drug ABUSE is awful, which it is. But I would argue that making it legal, And therefore less of a 'shameful' and in some cases criminal offence would bring more addicts forward looking for help, instead of them being afraid as being labeled as a criminal and In some extreme cases being convicted of drug possession. Not to mention those great over exaggerations you were talking about and how it's good that those keep more people away from it, I would go even further though and say that those same over exaggerations cause families to be disrupted and children disowned from the lies of the government, I'm not saying this is always the case, but it sure is possible and I have personally seen it happen.
2: I told you that that 'mist' around drugs was the reason most people use them, the mysterious coolness that it brings forth, and you agreed with me? But somehow flipped that argument around? How would you know legalization wont stop or bring numbers down? It's never happened, what HAS happened is the years of false drug prohibition that didn't do anything positive for society except employ DEA agents and forcibly put some serious ABUSERS in rehab.
3: the argument that legalization=easier to get is ludicrous, as most students can obtain any drug they want with an SMS text. Danny white from the suburbs doesn't have to drive down to the hood to visit Harlem black to get meth or coke anymore, another Danny white will drive it right to their doorstep. What regulating it WILL DO however is make it so the ecstacy pills that Danny white is buying dont contain crack cocaine or horse tranquilizer as most do on the illegal market to enhance the experience, and a multitude of other drugs are cut with extremely harmful, or just down right nasty cutting agents. Government control would absolutely eliminate these cutting agents. The only people beig given the 'it's rehab or nothing option is Johnny badass who steals to get his fix and ruins everyone's lives around them, and these people should go to jail, but my fot drugs, for being an idiot and stealing instead of working for their money.
4: I am for complete legalization of everything so the medicinal part doesn't apply to me, I will, however, address it. The influx you are seeing Is the same argument that I have in the above post for the Netherlands, use went up because 'yay it's legal', then the 'mysterious cool mist' around it suddenly vanishes, and use goes down, as what happened in the Netherlands, and is happening in California and Colorado, it's the 'yay it's legal/medicinal' stage. If mommy and daddy tell tommy not to smoke cigarettes, what's tommy gonna do? Buy a pack. If they leave it up to him and say, we don't care, but this is what it'll do to your health, tommy might reconsider. As is with every rebellious child.
6: I skipped 5.
7: you say that the government will over charge these items and over tax them, I say, why? When they know the current prices of drugs on a statewide level, and know that people are resistant to change, then why would they not price/tax it at the correct price an then just bring it up with inflation? That would be much more subtle and you assuming that they would overprice everything is rediculous, mainly because, contrary to popular belief, these drugs are relatively simple and cheap to make, on the large scale. So the government knows if it jacks up the price, then Juancho coca in Mexico will start making cocaine and the cartels are back up in business overnight. Also it seems more money in the pockets of our government is pretty needed right now so how is more money to spend bad?
8: you keep returning to addicts, as most people do. You'll also notice I made the word ABUSE clear up there. That is because there is a very, very, very huge difference between drug USE and drug ABUSE. I am a drug USER, I will occasionally take cocaine, prescriptions, other things to loosen up, and I have never been confronted by family, as a matter of fact, nobody even knows that I would even smoke pot by looking at me, everybody is so surprised when they find out, "but your an adult... With like a job... Ad kids." I would never even smoke around my children, as it is too much of a 'hey kids do this' but they have very right to do with their body as they please, and ill love them the same. Then there's the drug ABUSER. This guy typically is always thinking about his or her next fix, they will turn any conversation into one about drugs or money and are noticeably about in society, we see them, and tell them to get help, but they're too scared to be labeled a criminal by they're society toget it. These are usually your criminals, people who steal, mug, rape. You use the argument that the addicts will sit around an suck up you're tax money on drugs, they don't now? And this just comes back to less addicts if its easier to come out saying you have a problem and aren't instantly labeled 'criminal'.
And I assume your talking about heroin, meth addicts that sit around on welfare and use it to get more, maybe crackheads. To this I say one tenth of one percent of the population is addicted to heroin, too much, but why is it that 4 percent report having used in the past month, seems like a Rediculously small addiction rate to base an argument on, and that's heroin, the MOST addictive drug. And why not take all that WASTED $$$$ from the drug war, and give it to rehab charities, then we can start dealing with HELPING these ABUSERS on getting off the substance instead of locking up guys who smoke weed and sending them to 'criminal college' (prison).
EOTCfan516

Con

You make some very good points there, and I agree with some of them despite my position in this debate. I will however stick to my convictions as con for the time being.
1. First off, you say that legalization will make drug use a much less taboo topic amongst families and society, and will therefore make admittance and help easier to accept for drug abusers and addicts. I think that there'll always be a very negative and very controversial light surrounding drugs, and that yes, in some cases, family issues with drugs are down to naivety of people because of the propaganda put out there by the media, but I don't think that legalization will ever be something that could shift the negativity that drugs are viewed with, and so it'll always be hard for abusers to admit they need help.
2. You say that drug use is often down to the "coolness" of it, because it's against the law, but to be honest with you I find it a major pain in the ***. I smoke weed occasionally and I'd find it a lot more enjoyable if I didn't have to worry about the law so much. Yes, in terms of weed, I'd love to see legalization, but my point is that reputation is such an 80's thing, people don't try to be cool any more.
3. Drugs are very easy to access, and I know that, legal or illegal, the same people will buy the same drugs. That being said illegality avoids getting the government involved. If it were legal, pharmaceutical companies would have to be funded millions in order to keep up the mass production of all these newly legalized and highly demanded drugs, which would drain the economy of money, which as you said is an issue at the moment. It would cause a contradictory loop in the health system, because they'd be paying money to fund abusers and then paying more money to get them off it, and the only way to balance that would be to up the price of the drugs, thus bringing me back to my old point of abusers using tax payers money to fund their habit.
4. I already addressed this in 2.
6. Skipping 5 :)
7. You say that the government couldn't really get away with over pricing drugs, but I disagree. If the government got hold of drugs, they'd put a lot of dealers out of business, which would eventually result in a positive feedback loop where the government owns 99% of the drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are similar stories, where would you ever get them if not from a shop? The only way to get them on the cheap now is from duty free or from abroad, and even that's not so cheap any more. I believe the same thing will happen with drugs, the government will realize that, hold on, we have everything, so we can charge whatever we want, hey it'll even stop abusers because they can't afford it and we'll look like the good guys.
8. I understand the distinction between drug users and drug abusers, however the spotlight of the issues would be on the abusers. They'd be the ones to play the system and take advantage of it. Sure, there'd be people who buy an 1/8 every now and again to calm the old nerves, and they'd go about their lives as normal, just as the government would want, just as they go into everything, seeing only what they want to. The trouble is, they'll turn a blind eye to these abusers saying everything's fine it's all working perfectly, while what's happening is that there is still the major issue of the government funding abusers. The numbers may be small, but with legalization I'm sure it'd go up. I'm almost certain it's be the same as alcohol. There's plenty of alcoholics in the world, far too many, but the government aren't going to stop selling alcohol, just as they aren't going to stop selling tobacco, because although it poses a danger to people, and with drugs, danger of death, they're still raking in the money.
It's hard for me to take one side of this argument because I have very mixed views on the topic, and in some cases I almost fully agree with you, however I am finding it challenging and fun to come up with the opposite viewpoint.
Debate Round No. 2
SyndIca

Pro

Some valid points:
1: you say that you believe this 'mysterious mist' surrounding drug will always be there, a specific darkness around them we can't explain, and I wouldn't agree more, the only problem with that argument is, the government that's fighting these drugs created the darkness! That's like if I said to all my friends and family tomorrow 'guys, I'm starting a war on pants, don't look at them, wear them, or even think about them, they're evil, they'll constrict your male/female parts causing both to shrivel up and harden.' Now, if you've never seen pants before, this is gonna scare the living ***t out of you, because you have no evidence saying the contrary. This is how I view drug users and non drug users, People who've seen the pants and people who hear the government tell us how awful pants are.
2: I recognize what you mean when you say that not worrying about the law would be a HUGE help for us USERS who just wanna smoke a dube every now and then, but I'm afraid the 'coolness' I was talking about was not reasoning for WHY people do it, but instead, HOW they get started. Kids will hear how awful it is for you from our government, and kids will naturally, do the opposite, as we've seen throughout the years of false drug prohibition, and my idea was that by removing a 'big brother' type figure that it would; instead of shoving 'don't do drugs!' Down kids throats for years they simply learn about it instead, and learn the TRUE health cost facts and such to make their own choices, people always seem to think our government are parents too, we have them telling our kids all these things they can and can't do, as if what we would like to teach them in terms of moral values is wrong.
3: you say legalization would be a direct COST of our country, I completely disagree, to incarcerate a prisoner the money we are actually saving from the 'damages to society' for locking this guy up is >.18" per day. 18" saved for a criminal record.. Whereas the amount saved per day on these same 'damages to society' If we taxed and regulated it was 4$, from >.18" a day to 4$ a day, wow, big jump. Also you seem to be misunderstanding our market, the government wouldn't be sitting there paying for absolutely everything and doing everything themselves, it would be like alcohol, private companies in charge of making it within regulations with an FDA agent breathing down their neck like today's drug companies (or what we would like to beleive they are). It would most likely be taxed once from producer->distributer, and once from distributer->consumer. These are the taxes that would go directly into our governments pockets to help fund more treatment centers and help clinics. I can't stress this enough, PUNISHMENT is proven to work less effectively than TREATMENT, people seem to find no difference in the two, there is a HUGE one.
4: I addressed this in 2-3
6: 5 is useless
7: you seem to live in a fantasy world where drug dealers are making very little profit, this is highly untrue, yes the lower level 'street dealers' don't make a lot, usually enough for some free product, but they didn't make this product, thy bought it pre made from a dealer at a set (jacked-up ) price. For example, it takes roughly 33" per gram to grow pot, yet it sells for 10-20$ a gram in certain areas, so HOW DO these drug dealers find so many expenses on the drugs to jack up the price to 20$?! Tell us your secret SyndIca! They don't, it costs maybe 6" per gram to have it shipped, if its going far. Well then WWHHHYYYYYY do they charge so much for it SyndIca?! PORQUE! Ill tell ya why, because they can! They know that the people who are making their own wont buy it from them anyways, and that their literally the ONLY OPTION besides other dealers, no legal way to buy it, and the dealers could charge 80$ a gram if they wanted, luckily, it's easy to grow and at that point everyone who wanted it would be growing it. So to say the government wouldn't be satisfied with a $9.50 profit margin on every 39" spent, (and 9.50s a low estimate) is ludicrous.
8: ah the old 'but I only see the ABUSERS' argument, love to hear this one. We love our alcohol, it's amazing, it'll make Oprah Winfrey look like Hali barre after 4 drinks. What you don't see on your d"s eq"ies commercials is "don't become part of the 12 million users who will steal for their next bottle so they don't vomit all week long", but why is this? It surely happens? Because the government approves of alcohol! So to say anything besides "please drink responsibly" would almost make it seem bad for you! And keep kids away from it! And lose tax revenue! And we can't have all that at the cost of no alcoholics right?! Our governments fu**** up, Danny white throws a rock at a car and the headline is "kids becoming naturally more violent" as if we can't control it. Harlem black however throws a rock at a car, and the headline is "violent child destroys people's cars" it's that natural stigma that our government has where 'if I like it, it's awesome. If I don't, it's the devil.' When alcohol commercials start showing the ABUSERS and not just the USERS we can treat the two the same.
I also have not even begun to talk about the POSOTIVE effects this would have on society I have just been focusing on disproving the negatives, there's a lot of reasons to legalize that are good also.
1: cartels all but eliminated overnight. Where does that cartel leader get his money for that golden gat you see him with? Simple answer, drugs. It's 'proven' (as much as an illegal thing can be proven) that <80% of cartels income come from drug SALES alone, this is a boatload of money; enough to employ their guards, drug smugglers, people smugglers, drug producers, you name it. But the best part is the huge price markup from creator to cartel; something happens where pot doubles in value, pills triple, and cocaine, Jeez if you knew how much the cartels were making off of cocaine you'd cry, every package looks like a yearly income. The government control of drugs would destroy this black market for drugs, and once those guards aren't being paid to protect their leader, who's stopping the Mexican police from driving up that villa to arrest him now? No more 20 Mexicans with assault rifles waiting for a cop car.
2: stopping the focus on PUNISHMENT would allow for people to TREAT addicts. More rehab centers, with less of a need for rehab. There's not much I can do to back this one up as its pretty self explanatory.
3: taxes Taxes TAXES! More money in our governments pocket=less deficit=more comfortable society=better overall living conditions.
EOTCfan516

Con

I know that you stress the distinction between drug users and drug abusers, however, with the exclusion of weed perhaps, I'd say that very few people have the strength and responsibility to use addictive drugs without becoming wrapped up in the life style and eventually addicted. I think that drugs have a lot more power over people than you say, because people do lose their lives to it, not just literally in death but in terms of their societal standings, their echelons or even total employment, and their personality. Drugs can do horrible things to people, they can really bring out the demons inside, and yes, as you say there are people who have the will power and the strength of mind to resist being drawn into an addiction, but all it takes is a bad week at work and you could find yourself on a slippery slope, that's why it's crucial that drugs don't gain an accepted spot in society. You say that there are far more people who admit recent use than there are addicts, but I think that's a very sketchy analysis because those who used recently may have a dark future, and often addicts are hard to spot, they don't tend to draw attention to themselves because of the lawful and personal implications.
In terms of why people do drugs, you say that they get into it because they're told not to, and that if they were simply educated about the real facts of drugs then they'd have less of an inclination to try it. I think that that's partially true, but I'm certain that wouldn't happen. The world has built up such a reputation for drugs that it'll be impossible to shake it off. The government won't stop covering up the truth and will carry on bombarding people with the dangers, like they're doing with smoking. This probably won't even be a decision of the government's, it'll be forced upon them by the angry parents and teachers and NHS who want drugs gone, even though the drugs may not be that bad. My grandparents have been smoking since they were 16, yet their lungs are clean as a whistle, yet you see athletes drop dead in the gym age 30, it's just the way you're built. Some people are more susceptible to drug addiction than others, but the government will keep on spitting out nonsense that if you take drugs you'll die, and then we'll end up with people still wanting to try these drugs to see how bad they really are, and them being readily available for them.
Next, I'd like to start this point by saying that the government is greedy! It's so corrupt, and stuck in a capitalist mindset. Instead of thinking, now that we have power and money, we can give back to the country, they think, how can we get more powerful, and have more money. The government won't let the small companies run the drug industry, they'll get their hands on it before you can even set up shop. They'll have money bags dancing in front of their eyes so they'll take as much of the industry as they possibly can, even if that means pumping money into it. As you said, if they're the only ones with drugs then they can charge whatever they like, and tax whatever they like; while you say that taxes will give back to the public, I disagree. This leaves the public with much less money than we already have, and the government chipping away at their own debt and filling their own greedy pockets. With inflation as it is - unceasing - then the prices for drugs will go up significantly. Access to drugs will be extremely fiddly and annoying, because the government would play around with the law and drug use would then take an official place on resumes and personal medical records which could drive employers away, not that there are any jobs anyway, meaning the economy slowly gets worse, and capitalism takes a huge stride into running countries.
With the point about criminal activity coming to a stop, I absolutely agree.
Focusing on treatment rather than punishment is "tomato tomato". Yes, I agree that treatment is more effective and beneficial than punishment, but they're still both methods that combat drug abuse. If the government are having to offer help for the products they provide then where's the logic in that? We end up with an indecisive government that's just trying to suck more money from the public. A small fraction of taxes do go back into society, but the majority of public money spent on drugs is just money out of their wages, making for an overall poorer public.
Debate Round No. 3
SyndIca

Pro

It seems you have gone from reasonable arguments against the notion, to testifying that what I'm saying is untrue. You say you beleive that people don't have the power to not be addicted to something like heroin, but you completely look past facts that I've presented to you, and in fact, it is hard to keep records of an illegal activity, which is one of the reasons why we need to legalize so these back alley addicts come forth instead of begging for change everyday and get some help. You seem to look past the fact that 100% of ABUSERS want help. Yes that's right 100% of people who admit they are addicted to a substance, say they want help. So why do 5% of addicts seek help and 95% die on the street? Because they're too scared to get help. Of course there are addicts that don't admit they have a problem but they aren't even ready to help themselves. You keep saying it ruins lives, but have not been able to present to me logical reasoning as to why legalization=more addicts not looking for help. Because 100% of the research I do points to them not only wanting this help, but being so afraid to seek it, that they would rather sleep in a street than a nice warm bed without drugs. And the recent use analysis isn't from 1 poll, it's from years and years of research conducted by, duh duh duuhhhh, the government. You keep saying 'keep it the way it is because there's no proof legalization will work.' Where's the proof it doesn't work? Where is this mystical magical time you and the government keep speaking about where drugs were legal anywhere? Because surely if you KNOW it won't work then you must have some tests backing it up? Oh wait, drug prohibition has been the model since our nation was founded! So how the heck would we know any facts about anything besides the prohibition? We don't. Now bringing up the government 'taking control of the drug industry' as you're scared of. Have you been watching medical/legal marijuana news at all? The governments staying as far away from this stuff as possible! They let mom&pop pot businesses operate everything! I myself have only seen a FEW pot companies and those are run by regular people like you and me! But there's still (state)government regulations on pot, just because the government isn't CONTROLLING it doesn't mean they can't regulate it. The government has put this blindfold over the public that CONTROL is REGULATION, and to put it simply, it's not. And how would this make less money than we already have? Drug taxes wouldn't be an income tax! Itold you it would probably be taxed once from creator->distributor and from distributer-> consumer. This is no different than the taxes on cigarettes. And finally I hope your joking about 'punishment works, so why stop?' If a baby cries, you feed it, you change it, you try to help it feel BETTER, you don't hit it and tell t to shut up. An addict can be viewed as a baby, all a baby wants is food, poo, sleep, if something gets in his way of that, he will cry up a storm. All an addict wants is his next fix, and if anyone stands in his way of that... Don't stand in his way of that. So by your logic it's just as okay to hit a baby if it cries because punishment and treatment are 'tomato tomahto'. You may say this is extreme, but how does that addict feel while incarcerated? Like a poor defenseless baby at the mercy of his/her government. So instead of putting these people with horrifying withdrawal symptoms in a nice cozy room with a doctor, we will just put them in a cage with convicted murderers, to puke on themselves while being raped and beaten daily. This Is a good method. Yea right. We aren't helping addicts get better we are teaching them to be more violent, and get caught less.
EOTCfan516

Con

The facts you presented to me were statistics on who's addicted to heroin and who reported use in the last month, ever considered that the sample was poor? Sample size, variety of people, lies, all affect how good a survey is, and do you think every addict is going to come forward and say yeah I have a problem. As I said, most addicts aren't exactly getting up on podiums to announce their addiction, they keep it very much to themselves meaning that more often than not, these sort of statistics are inaccurate. Also it's not the ratio of users:abusers per se, it's the fact that we still have abusers, and will continue to have abusers if drugs are legalized, yet legalization will mean that the government are held responsible, and the government have to provide funding to get them cleaned up, and the government would have to go against every protest and disapproval in order to continue to supply people with dangerous drugs that are being used for very futile reasons. For medicinal properties, I agree that drugs should be prescribed, but not available for people to use every day for the fun of it. Cannabis is a different case, because that's proven to be harmless and have multiple medicinal properties. As long as the drug is safe enough (so Cannabis, LSD, MDMA etc), then I wouldn't protest legalization for recreational use, but when it comes to the Class A's, the ones that do pose danger to people -addiction, overdose, irresponsible usage, potency, infection - they should be illegal, and I think that it's all or nothing, it's time that the government cracked down hard on drugs. They need to target the large scale drug lords and cartels and they need to come down on them with full force. Legalization would take care of the criminal activity, but we'd still have drugs floating around people's homes. You ask where's my proof that legalization won't work? Logic. If you think logically about the implications of each stage in the process, it's quite easy to spot the problems. Firstly we need enough of the public to approve, otherwise it'll get destroyed by us. If it somehow managed to surpass the public, the government would have to put a lot of time and effort into an industry built predominantly for leisure that causes high risk for anyone who uses it, when there are so many other things the government need to be focusing on, like education, housing and a massive imbalance in the spread of money. How about this, instead of opening up a high risk industry that carries huge controversy and ethical issues, why not cut footballers (soccer players) annual wages by, say, a couple of million a year? I think the government has a lot it needs to sort out before it can be experimenting with risky business like the total legalization of all drugs. Instead of sticking with absolutely no legalization, I'll suggest a solution. The government takes it slowly; firstly they could mess around with laws on weed, monitoring the effects that complete legalization has on a population, and whether or not we see an increase or decrease in users. Also they must see where the balance of people for and against weed's legalization lies, and then put out the notion of total legalization of all other drugs, let the public mull it over and debate over it for a year or 2. Then we step up to MDMA, LSD, Crystal Meth etc, we decriminalize those, and completely legalize them for a trial period. This would be the decider, because this is where we start to see people tipping in the direction of for or against legalization. The government brings in new systems of education where Personal, Social & Health Education is a more heavily implemented topic in schools, and students are given a better awareness of the positives and negatives of drugs, letting them make their mind up. I think that it wouldn't be until after these steps are complete that the government could stand back and say, this is what would be best. What I will say is that my most ideal solution that meets half way in between legal and illegal, is decriminalization. That way drug addicts don't get locked up, which means they're a lot more comfortable coming forward and admitting that they have a problem and need help. It also means that we'd be able to see what effect this would have without completely going out on a limb with total legalization, when it'd be too risky to tell whether or not it would work.
Debate Round No. 4
SyndIca

Pro

Time for round 5, closing statements. No new arguments are brought up in this round. I thank you for accepting my debate topic and for being such a fun person to debate with. Your arguments were short and to the point. I again thank you for accepting this challenge.
1: you say, my statistics should be wrong, but then, why trust any statistic at all ever? If you don't poll absolutely everyone on the planet with a lie detector then all of these results, are in turn, inaccurate. So then you can never use anything that you find on the Internet besides videos to prove any point ever, because news flash, all of those statistics come from polls. Just because I research and MOST of the polls say that, yea they can be wrong, but chances are that these 3 or 4 or 5 different respected websites aren't all just going online and lying about these things with AROUND the same numbers as each other. By your logic of being illogical you can never trust any book or text on anything ever, what if everyone who's saying that is lying about it? How do you know Asia is there if you've never been? Pictures? History? But what if all of them lied? See where I'm going here? Using that argument you could then falsify anybody's statements on anything written.
2: I completely AGREE with you that not all addicts are coming forward, I said that. What I also said that you ignored is that 100% of people polled want help. That isn't a bad survey or wrong people being asked, as long as you trust the numbers (which I do because I know many addicts) then 100% is ALL OF THEM wanting help, every one who ADMITTED they had a problem. Maybe once it's legal and the 'other side' of addicts see how many people come forward it'll pull them out of their 'oh I'm fine I could quit tomorrow' mindset.
3: you say we will always have ABUSERS, this is 100% true. We have people who abuse the speed limit and go 90. We have drunks who abuse alcohol and then violently beat their wives. We have criminals who abuse people's rights and murder rape &steal, we have hunters who abuse hunting laws and shoot endangered animals, we have pet owners who abuse dog laws and beat their dogs. You see, we can always pull extremes from literally everything in society that people abuse, I could go on for hours. But all of that is still legal, and when a 40 car pile up happens because of a speeder we don't go "that darn government should have never sold cars that go above 55 it's ALL THEIR FAULT" why? Because everybody likes to drive (or huge majority) so we would never even think about bannig something fun that we all like. With drugs, since all don't use, that's why people would "blame the government" and the only people blaming them would be people who don't use drugs falsely led to beleive it is the governments RESPONSIBILITY to come Into our lives and say what we can and cannot do. All the USERS would be going, 'wow what an idiot' because we understand its not the drug that caused whatever happened it is the PERSONS POOR PERSONAL CHOICES. And y guess would be even if he wasn't addicted to meth he still would've been an IDIOT and done something else stupid.
4: you say that the government would have to then redirect allllll of this money into alllll of these resources to check an regulate this. What is the DEA? Explain that to me. The DEA is money funded to find people selling drugs, and lock them in prison. Lets check that real quick.0 It costs money to employ the DEA agent tracking the dealer -1. It costs them money to run the building he works at -2. It costs them money to pay his health insurance and other benefits -3. The drug dealer may have caused societal damages though -2. It costs money to keep this dealer imprisoned -3. It costs money to process a trial for this dealer -4. The money the drug dealer would have made would be spent on things that would make our economy better (food rent liquor etc) -5. So we end up with a little bit of a tipped scale there. That is just the DEA alone. Now this regulatory system that your scared will cost so much to start up, is already here my friend. The FDA food and drug administration, we would have to open up a wing for every drug class, but that would only create more jobs, the jobs that the DEA agents lost out on.
5: you use the 'its all or nothing and I don't see our government doing it anytime soon' argument.. And your right, they will NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER just legalize all drugs, it would be an admission of wrongfulness and they need to spread that out over time. However, the debate topic isn't 'the us government should legalize all drugs now' it's 'should illegal drugs be legalized?'. Both are far far different in many ways. I would never argue that we will legalize all drugs at once as that is rediculous.
6: I don't know what world you're living in, but the government HAS been cracking down hard on drugs for a LONG TIME now. They target any name they hear and only leave medicinal marijuana users alone cuz it makes it easier to raid the dispensarys. The reason why we don't just drive up to "the cartels" is because they have hundreds, maybe even thousands, of armed guards waiting to shoot a cop car at a moments notice. And most of the cartels are in cahoots with their government (mostly in Mexico). So you tell me why we don't send all our cops up to an armed villa to be shot down dead.
7: as I said I am not getting Into the logical aspect of the process of legalization, I'm debating the logic behind the morals of legalization. As In I'm not saying 'how to' I'm saying 'we should'. So half of your last argument doesn't apply to this debate and I would gladly accept another on a more specific topic if you'd like but I'm keeping this one to what I meant.
8: my final rebuttal is your notion that 'the best of both worlds is decriminalization', when in reality, it simply isn't. What good is giving the homeless man begging for change for his next Baggie of crack a ticket going to do? Going further, what will you write as an address? Or how can you charge a man with no PRIVATE setting to do his drugs with PUBLICLY being intoxicated? All he has is the public. That is yet another reason why legalization is the best option.
In conclusion this was a very fun debate, I would've liked to debate with you the logical aspects of legalizing it in our society today, but that was not the topic however. You made many valid points while arguing this though and had many bright ideas as to help with the upbringing of legalization. You have been a formidable opponent.
Having said that now I must address voters, he had some good arguments in rounds 1 an 2 but then spun off into a frenzy of accusing me of falsifying information in my favor and accusing all polls to be inaccurate. This is not how a person should format a debating process. I beleive I made many valid points that could not be contradicted, an that is why you should vote pro!
EOTCfan516

Con

Thank you for that debate, it was very challenging. I think I've said all that I'd like to, and would like to say that despite me arguing con I do definitely have mixed opinions about this and a lot of the time I agreed with my opponent, which is why it was so challenging to ignore that and argue against anyway. Despite having said that I didn't argue anything I didn't myself believe in. The result will go where it goes, I had a good time and found it very beneficial for the mind.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by jp1999 4 years ago
jp1999
Tip: Don't leave it vague. Ever.
Posted by SyndIca 4 years ago
SyndIca
I probably should've been more specific but I wanted people to either disprove my opposition to arguments or present more arguments, I wanted to leave it vague.
Posted by Consummator 4 years ago
Consummator
I don't understand your round one debate at all...
No votes have been placed for this debate.