The Instigator
ForestMan777
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Figueroa15
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should the War on Drugs be continued?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 3/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 71798
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

ForestMan777

Con

Today, I wish to have a debate on if the Federal War on Drugs should be continued and drug possession and use should remain criminal offenses. The first round is to accept and I am on the side against continuing the War and legalizing or at least, decriminalizing narcotic usage. Thanks in advance to my opponent and looking forward to a good debate.
Figueroa15

Pro

Seeing how we are not debating round 1, an argument is not being posted. I will allow my opponent to kick off the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ForestMan777

Con

Thanks for accepting my debate, and I will start by stating the intended purpose of the American Drug War (might be different in other countries) in the context of the long title of the Controlled Substances Act: "An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act and other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug abuse." Seems great, doesn't it? It eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties for drugs and that was great. Time for a history lesson. 16 years later, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was passed. It destroyed virtually all the CSA achieved by reconverting the newly established rehab system to the failed punitive one, reestablishing mandatory minimums for almost all controlled substances, like 5 grams of crack cocaine would get you 5 years in prison, no wiggle room, period. But to get the same penalty for powder cocaine, you would have to have 500 grams in your possession. How can any sane person look at that and say; "Yeah, that's fair."?

Onto my next point, the United States has the highest population of people in prisons, with 1.57 million people in prison, with 1 in 31 Americans in the correctional system. Since some of the highest sentences are for drug offenses, in some cases, the penalty for a first-time drug offender can exceed that of a robber or a rapist, which is beyond disturbing. Since we have an overwhelming urge to police the world (which is contributing to our crippling national debt, not the cause, but world policing is adding to it), we feel like we have to be spearheading the worldwide drug war, not just in America, but in the world in general. But, how much is being spent? Well, over $8,000,000,000,000 at federal, state, and local levels to fight this war. But maybe the idea is to stop drugs from being easily available, so fewer people have the money to do them (supply and demand). Well, between 1990 and 2007, the average price of cocaine, heroin, and weed have decreased (on average) at least 80%, while at the same time, average purity has increased by 11%, 60%, and 161%, respectively. Translation: heroin, cocaine, and marijuana have all gotten purer and cheaper since we started cracking down on drugs and users in America.

I would like to hear what my opponent has to say about this and looking forward to your responses.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://www.drugsense.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
Figueroa15

Pro

I would like to state that completely ending the War on drugs would be disastrous for the American Society.
Granted there are some downfalls to the way that the situation is handle does not mean we can not reform the process to encompass less spending or drug offense punishment changes, And this is a simple fact that the Affirmation can not refute.

Obv 1) I feel that the Burden of Proof lies on the side of the Affirmation because they must prove that there will be large benefits in ending the "War on Drugs".

That being said lets move on to the quote on quote "War on Drugs"

Contention 1) It protects american citizens.
The war on drugs provides a secure defense to the ever so expanding drug empires that are bulding in the U.S and Mexico. To completely cut this off would you are putting the entire American Public in danger because you are allowing the dangerous distribution of drugs without punishment.

Contention 2) Disregarding drugs is extremely dangerous.
There is a reason that drugs are illegal. And that is because they impair thoughts, actions, and pose a danger on the surrounding public. Drugs are responsible for killing 1.2 million people each year 45% of which were sober bystanders killed by other people. By ending this war you would be weakening the punishment for drug related crimes.

I would now like to review the points that my opponent have made.
Attack 1) His main focus in the first point of discussion is the fact that the punishments vary and murders are let off more lightly than people convicted of murder. But as I said in my introduction reform is needed and this can be amended if it is deemed necessary by the supreme court directly toppling this part of the affirmations main arguments.

Attack 2) His next point is the fact that there is substantial economic impacts that directly disable the U.S federal government. Specifically that 8 trillion dollars have been put in to this war when, According to Time, CNN, BBC, and the New York Times the amount that has really been put into the effort is around 1/16th of the affirmative sides statistic. And my main argument brings up the fact that if spending is also deemed to be too excessive on the topic we can Reform it. Again meaning the affirmation has not provided any points that directly advocate their cause.

VOTE NEG!!
Debate Round No. 2
ForestMan777

Con

Pretty good points, so here's my counter to keep the debate rolling along.

Here are my counterpoints to what the opponent stated. (copy pasted)
Obv 1) I feel that the Burden of Proof lies on the side of the Affirmation because they must prove that there will be large benefits in ending the "War on Drugs".

I will give you a few reasons. As I already stated, the drug war takes up quite a bit of tax dollars (which we don't have), imprisons a lot of otherwise, law-abiding folks, essentially puts the government in charge of what you do and don't do by saying "Oh, you can take nicotine, you can take caffeine, but you can't take mescaline or marijuana." (fill in the blank with banned substance), and all in all, as I pointed out with the price and purity study, encourages more drug smuggling and use, by effect. Here's another reason legalization would work; quality control. As one ketamine dealer stated on NatGeo's Drugs Inc., "I've seen almost everything in K, from salt to, like, crushed glass."

Contention 1) It protects american citizens.
The war on drugs provides a secure defense to the ever so expanding drug empires that are bulding in the U.S and Mexico. To completely cut this off would you are putting the entire American Public in danger because you are allowing the dangerous distribution of drugs without punishment.

...Or, we have American companies produce their own products (drugs), have them regulated in the same way that alcohol and tobacco is regulated, and cut the Cartels and the subhuman mongrels therein out and leave them out of a job.

Contention 2) Disregarding drugs is extremely dangerous.
There is a reason that drugs are illegal. And that is because they impair thoughts, actions, and pose a danger on the surrounding public. Drugs are responsible for killing 1.2 million people each year 45% of which were sober bystanders killed by other people. By ending this war you would be weakening the punishment for drug related crimes.

I would like a citation for this. Here's a quote from a Stanford paper. "Every effort the U S government has made at interdiction since Operation Intercept has at most resulted in a reorganization of the international drug trade. Heavily monitored drug routes have been rerouted. Drugs enter the United States through land, sea, and air. Closing our borders to drug smugglers is an impossibility as long as the demand exists." Meaning, the War is a fool's errand as long as people want it. Which is always.

Attack 1) His main focus in the first point of discussion is the fact that the punishments vary and murders are let off more lightly than people convicted of murder. But as I said in my introduction reform is needed and this can be amended if it is deemed necessary by the supreme court directly toppling this part of the affirmations main arguments.

I assume you mean murderers are let off with easier sentences than drug offenders. But nonetheless, reform is needed in sentencing? Glad to see we're on the same page.

Attack 2) His next point is the fact that there is substantial economic impacts that directly disable the U.S federal government. Specifically that 8 trillion dollars have been put in to this war when, According to Time, CNN, BBC, and the New York Times the amount that has really been put into the effort is around 1/16th of the affirmative sides statistic. And my main argument brings up the fact that if spending is also deemed to be too excessive on the topic we can Reform it. Again meaning the affirmation has not provided any points that directly advocate their cause.

I would like to see a citation for this, the 8 trillion burned (you'd get more satisfaction just lighting that 8 trillion on fire) is across the board for everything from the DEA peoples' salaries, enforcement of laws against marijuana, heroin, cocaine, LSD, etc. and so on and so forth.

Want to see the counter points you have to make and have a good day.

Sources:

https://web.stanford.edu...
www.drugpolicy.org/wasted-tax-dollars
www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/
National Geographic's Drugs Inc. "Ketamine"
Figueroa15

Pro

Very Well,

My Opponent seems to fixated upon the fact of the economic impacts that resolution will provide. Well we can clearly Use logic to determine that it is practically impossible to simply make an illegal act legal and then tax it. Like come on do you really think that Drug dealers... the only source of drugs... will enforce a tax. The clear and obvious answer is no. So this whole point has collapse upon its self.

And then his second point is the whole punishment issue. This illogical because every crime has a punishment and THAT IS OKAY. Using campaign funds can get you more jail time that a Murder, many offenses come with more jail time than murder and you don't see any people complaining. This point that my opponent makes is not topical and should not be weighed in this debate...

Moving on to the absurd attacks made on My case.

He refutes my contention 1 by saying big corporations will be able to flourish from this... Isn't this the problem with america... we are too worried about pleasing big companies instead of the safety of our citizens... And the same sentence suggest that by ending this war will stop the mongrel cartels but this is not true because they will just be able to move freely between borders and obtain more strength.

Moving on to my Contention 2) Regarding your request for citation... GOOGLE it... the first five links shall provide you the links you need.. He goes on to state that an effort against theses cartels is useless but again, why should we not try our best to protect are citizens...

My opponent seems to value the strength of large companies over the security of citizens, and that is all that he has advocated for.

There is not a logical reason to vote in the affirmation there for I urge you to vote NEG!!!
Debate Round No. 3
ForestMan777

Con

To answer my opponent's last responses for the last round of this debate, I'm just going to go for it and get right into the meat of the issue.

"Well we can clearly Use logic to determine that it is practically impossible to simply make an illegal act legal and then tax it. Like come on do you really think that Drug dealers... the only source of drugs... will enforce a tax. The clear and obvious answer is no."

Right... Like the bootleggers enforced the regulations and taxes on alcohol after Prohibition. Kinda like how the current drug dealers check ID of the kids that come to them to buy their ___________ (fill in the blank). But if you are gonna say, "But ForestMan, you can make alcohol in America, you don't need another country's help!" OK. I'll bite. Yes, you can make alcoholic beverages in this country without the help of another country. Just like the marijuana plant can be grown in this country. And even if it can't, there exists alternative ways to produce it, like indoor growing of plants. Besides, when the New Prohibition (Drug War) is ended, I would say that dealers would just disappear and have to get a real job, because nobody, if given the choice would buy questionably pure and questionably safe ________ from an incredibly dangerous, scary mongrel on the corner, when they could go down to the convenience store and get their standard met, government approved _______.

"This illogical because every crime has a punishment and THAT IS OKAY. Using campaign funds can get you more jail time that a Murder, many offenses come with more jail time than murder and you don't see any people complaining. This point that my opponent makes is not topical and should not be weighed in this debate..."

Seeing how as in America, you can get up to 2 years for misuse of campaign funds, whereas, murder can get you 25 to life or worse in some of the states.
Every crime does have a punishment and that is OKAY? It costs about $20,000 a prisoner a year to keep them locked up. Now it might be worth that much of our money, never forget that it's OUR money, to keep murderers, rapists, and arsonists out of circulation, but all those crimes have one common denominator that drug use by itself doesn't; a victim and an aggressor. They aren't hurting anyone by using, so what are we doing by locking up acid trippers or peaceful weedheads, when there's murderers and rapists running loose on the streets?

"He goes on to state that an effort against theses cartels is useless but again, why should we not try our best to protect are citizens..."

We've tried the war for 45 years, burned trillions of very scarce dollars, violated the freedom of the people, stopped scientific research, given the Cartel a massive shot in the arm, and all in all, promoted more drug use. As Dr. Phil would say; "How well's that workin' out for 'ya?" A wise man once said, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

"My opponent seems to value the strength of large companies over the security of citizens, and that is all that he has advocated for."

Where in anything I've said have I said "large companies"? All I've said was "regulate like tobacco and alcohol". Besides, I don't value the strength of large companies over the security of the people. See, in order to enforce the drug war, the DEA can search your home, seize your property, and violate your liberty, by just supposing you have something to do with selling drugs, getting a search warrant (which for a drug case, any judge would sign in a friggin' minute), and busting down your door. (hmmm... I think I read something like this before... cough.. cough.. 1984.. cough). So it seems, you value the strength and power of the DEA over the security and freedom of the citizens. But my number one concern on this issue is the freedom of the American people, like the Founding Fathers intended, which won't be achieved by hiding from the big, scary drug monster and siccing the DEA on it, but by people telling the people we chose to represent us that this is wrong and needs to change. But before you dismiss what I say as just a toker defending his vice, I don't use, nor have I ever used recreational drugs. This includes alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs. But as I said before, I value freedom over defending a broken system. If you think sobriety is good, that's fine, I sure do. But if you don't, that's fine and shouldn't be punished for not conforming to the government's expected standards of mandatory sobriety (unless it happens to be alcohol and cigarettes, then in that case, the government turns a blind eye on that.) Vote against the war and have a good day.
Figueroa15

Pro

Whatevs... we need to protect our citizens by continuing this war.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives. Have U.S. drug laws reduced drug use? No. The U.S. is the No. 1 nation in the world in illegal drug use. As with Prohibition, banning alcohol didn't stop people drinking -- it just stopped people obeying the law. In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws. That adds up to over 87 billion dollars just to get rid of something that does not work. If you ignore a serious problem, refuse to debate it and hope it will go away all by itself, you are very naive. The war on drugs has failed. It's time to confront the issue head on.
http://www.countthecosts.org...
Posted by Figueroa15 1 year ago
Figueroa15
Actually I am not stalling, first off it is his turn, and second read his comments on round one.
Posted by Thescarecrow066 1 year ago
Thescarecrow066
Pro is stalling get on with this
No votes have been placed for this debate.