The Instigator
dabeast5764
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thyanchor
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should the U. S. Government fund rehabilitation to illegal drug abusers?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Thyanchor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,141 times Debate No: 40139
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

dabeast5764

Con

Our economy nowadays is not the best and we don’t have the extra money to be spending on stuff that could have been prevented by using just one word, “No”. There is a reason illegal drugs are illegal, It is because most are very harmful to the body and can be some of the most addictive substances. Knowing this people still continue to try new drugs and become addicted and then want help, but can’t get help cause the spent all their money on drugs. Then they go to jail and go through withdrawls,eventual get out use again and die of an overdose. Again all could have been prevented with just one word.

Many people would not like their tax dollars going to inmates who knowingly took the risks, when the money could be going towards making schools safer or something along those lines. There are so many things that the money could benefit rather than using it to attempt to fix someones problems.

Another problem is we can’t guarantee that the rehabilitation will work. As we all know there is nothing guaranteed to work 100% of the time and there will always be a time when something fails. A good question is what happens if there is a high failure rate and money is wasted.

They made the choice why help them? They need to learn from the mistakes which they have made. You can’t always rely on a second chance in life when you make a really big mistake. People need to know that every little decision they make can ultimately change their lives.

Using tax dollars to put inmates through rehabilitation would be complete waste of money. In our society today we have bigger problems to take care of such as the economy and countries that hate us. The tax money could be put towards health care rather than putting some meth head through rehabilitation that may or may not even work.


Thyanchor

Pro

I gladly accept this challenge.

Framework: In order to clarify the round, I will provide a few definitions. According to the New American Oxford Dictionary, fund is explained as to "provide with money for a particular purpose". Therefore, as defined as such, any arguments stemming from the methods that may or may not influence the American population are considered null and void and should not be considered in today's round. Furthermore, we define illegal as "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law". Therefore, we must not include substances including tobacco and alcohol in today's round as well.

Secondarily, the general intent of a drug rehabilitation is to enable the patient to cease substance abuse, in order to avoid the psychological, legal, financial, social, and physical consequences that can be caused, especially by extreme abuse. Therefore, if the PRO can prove that the intent of the program has been fulfilled, then the PRO must win today's round.

Contention 1: The intent of the program is justifiable as addiction and consumption has risen the past few years.
An estimated 20.4 million people in the United States used some kind of illicit drug in the past 30 days, according to the latest government statistics. About 8.3 percent of all persons age 12 and over are involved in use of illegal drugs or the non-medical use of prescription drugs. There are the most commonly abused drugs:
  • Marijuana, by 14.8 million people, or 6 percent.
  • Cocaine, 2.4 million users.
  • Hallucinogens, including Ecstasy, 1 million users.
  • Methamphetamine, about 731,000 users.
  • Prescription drugs, 7 million non-medical users.
The simple fact of the matter is that the problem of illicit drug addiction has gone up in recent years to a point where millions of Americans are under the influence daily. This is simply not something the United States government can ignore.

Contention 2: Each user of an illicit drug is not always at fault.
When we look at the causes for illicit drug usage, we see that it is not always the person's choice to do such. A recent study by the Drugs-Violence Task Force of the National Sentencing Commission explains, reasons range from “to have a good time with my friends”—a social reason, as well as “to get high.” However, those in the heavier user groups increasingly mention psychological coping as the underlying reasons for their use—“to get through the day,” “to relieve boredom,” “to deal with anger and frustration,”. With this, we see that these users of the illicit drugs are influenced by their peers, by psychological reasons, and by the accompanying stress that may appear in their lives. The following factors may even increase your likelihood of having a drug addiction:
  • Family members who have struggled with addiction
  • An abusive or neglectful childhood
  • Mental health issues, including depression
  • The use of drugs at a relatively young age

All kinds of people can struggle with addiction regardless of whether or not these risk factors are prevalent in their lives. These illicit drugs act as an outlet for them, however our rehabilitation programs will prove to them that it is not an outlet.

Contention 3: Rehabilitation programs ultimately work.
Many people like to promote the myth that addictions can be overcome with willpower. Sadly, this is not true. When people use drugs, particularly over stretches of time, their brain changes in response to prolonged exposure to those drugs. Their cravings tend to get stronger, and they may feel compelled to use more of the drugs. This biological reality makes quitting alone very difficult. Thanks to drug addiction programs, there is no reason to go through the recovery process in a vacuum. These programs provide addicts with the support that they need to rehabilitate. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) National Survey on Drug Use and Health,23.5 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol abuse problem in 2009 (9.3 percent of persons aged 12 or older). Of these, only 2.6 million—11.2 percent of those who needed treatment—received it at a specialty facility. Most all of these patients were able to leave the facility cured.

Contention 4: Rehabilitation programs are cost-effective.
A new study of 1992 data estimates the economic costs to society of substance abuse at $246 billion for that year, and $276 billion projected for 1995. Alcohol-related lost productivity alone accounted for two-thirds of the total alcohol cost. Drug related crime accounted for over half of the total drug costs. Workplaces take the brunt in lost/poor performance, accidents, and crime. We are losing money from those who use illicit drugs. Decreasing the problem will aid in improving the economy and gaining more funds to actually counter the problem. Additionally, as I explain my framework, the government will not only rely on taxes to fund these programs but may reallocate in order to pay for this increasing problem.

We need to do something before it is too late.

Therefore, you need to vote for PRO in today's round.

---
Thank you,
~ThyAnchor
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
dabeast5764ThyanchorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Sources go to Pro for having sources at all, and grammar to Pro because Con made a few grammatical errors. However, Pro created a case that responded to every single one of the concerns that Con had made. Pro effectively explained that drug abuse is an issue that requires attention by the United States and that can be mended by rehabilitation in a cost-effective manner. Hence the argumentation vote goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
dabeast5764ThyanchorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I liked the point about how drug addiction was not always the "fault" of the addict, but I was hoping to see a mention of people with chronic conditions here. I think this might have helped humanize these people. Rehab efforts do cost less than incarceration and crime, another point that resonated with me. I give arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
dabeast5764ThyanchorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The one round nature of the debate makes it pretty difficult for the instigator to win. Pro's impacts all go undisputed, so I have to affirm.