The Instigator
SimDim888
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Should there be more injecting centres around the world for the use of illicit drugs?

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 2 votes the winner is...
SimDim888
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 99703
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

SimDim888

Pro

I would love this debate with someone.

On my trip to King's Cross on the weekend I learnt a lot about an injecting centre where people are able to safely take drugs with clean equipment and nurses so that there is no chance of overdose. There have been 1 million injections taken place there, 5,000 of those people have overdosed but none of them have died. These statistics are incredible and very promising but still it is the only injecting centre in the entire south hemisphere. If this place is so great why isn't there more of them popping around all over the place.
Mharman

Con

They are illegal for a reason. It would be illegal to have a facility that lets people do illegal drugs. Not to mention how bad for your health drugs are.
Debate Round No. 1
SimDim888

Pro

Yes but here we really need to start to talk about harm minimisation. People are going to take drugs not matter what, if you are addicted to an illicit substance you will do whatever you can to get hold of the drug and to use it. Now would you prefer these drug offenders to be taking drugs in back lanes where if something goes wrong they are dead, or in a centre where they can take the drugs using clean equipment and with a nurse there with them. 15,000 lives have been saved because of this centre and so many more could be because of more centres

On the topic of one of the comments, I understand I contradicted myself but what I meant was that there Was no chance of an overdose that would kill someone, there have been overdoses in the centre because people use sketchy drugs, but none of them have died because of the centre
Mharman

Con

"Yes but here we really need to start to talk about harm minimisation. People are going to take drugs not matter what, if you are addicted to an illicit substance you will do whatever you can to get hold of the drug and to use it"
That doesn't mean it's no use trying.

"Now would you prefer these drug offenders to be taking drugs in back lanes where if something goes wrong they are dead, or in a centre where they can take the drugs using clean equipment and with a nurse there with them. 15,000 lives have been saved because of this centre and so many more could be because of more centres"
I prefer we find a more effective way of getting drugs off the streets.

Also, it may not kill them to do their drugs in a injecting center, but it still will hurt their health, but they won't notice it because they are so stoned.
Debate Round No. 2
SimDim888

Pro

The police have been trying to sort out this problem for over 50 years! They have tried and tried and tried to help sort out the problem but over the last 50 years have they made the problem better? NO! The problem is now worse than it ever was. We need to stop using our old systems and start to think from a different point of view. People are going to take drugs not matter what so now we need to start thinking of saving lives in the form of harm minimisation. The police seem to be unable to approach issues with a different point of view or outside the box but there is proof around the world that this works and we need it more.

There is no more effective way of getting drugs off the streets, it's over. Unless the police can have some incredible idea than it is over. We need to stop trying the same ways and approach the issue from a different way. Although these sounds weird but if we even legalise drugs we will still only see the same amount of drugs because there isn't a financial business in it anymore and the drugs will more pure which means than there will be less chance of overdoes because the dealers are unable to put sketchy ingredients in the drugs like glass or acids

It is their own issue if they decided to ruin their own lives by taking drugs. The problem only occurs when they start to injure others which is something which will be needed to work on by possibly keeping the people in the injection centre which allows them not to affect others because the initial high of the drugs would be gone
Mharman

Con

Rebuttals:

"The police have been trying to sort out this problem for over 50 years! They have tried and tried and tried to help sort out the problem but over the last 50 years have they made the problem better? NO! The problem is now worse than it ever was. We need to stop using our old systems and start to think from a different point of view. People are going to take drugs not matter what so now we need to start thinking of saving lives in the form of harm minimisation. The police seem to be unable to approach issues with a different point of view or outside the box but there is proof around the world that this works and we need it more."
That's the gist of what I said. "I prefer we find a more effective way of getting drugs off the streets." I said that in the pervious round. I agree that we need a better way to get drugs off the streets. But injecting centers are definetely not it.

"There is no more effective way of getting drugs off the streets, it's over. Unless the police can have some incredible idea than it is over. We need to stop trying the same ways and approach the issue from a different way. Although these sounds weird but if we even legalise drugs we will still only see the same amount of drugs because there isn't a financial business in it anymore and the drugs will more pure which means than there will be less chance of overdoes because the dealers are unable to put sketchy ingredients in the drugs like glass or acids"
"There is no effective way of getting drugs off the streets, it's over." This quote from you is self-defeating. Injecting centers were your solution to getting drugs off the streets, remember? By saying that there is no effective way, you sdmitted that your solution wasn't effective! Also, what makes you think the companies (I'm asssuming you wan't drugs to be legal and produced by companies, in which you self-defeated yourself again by saying the isn't any financial business in it anymore; another contradiction by you) producing the drugs won't put sketchy ingredients in them? There are plenty of companies that put harmful ingredients in their products! For this, look no further than the beauty industry. In their lotions and shampoos they have put some pretty bad ingredients.
http://www.prevention.com...

"It is their own issue if they decided to ruin their own lives by taking drugs. The problem only occurs when they start to injure others which is something which will be needed to work on by possibly keeping the people in the injection centre which allows them not to affect others because the initial high of the drugs would be gone"
You say that it is their own issue if they hurt themselves, but if you had a son who was destroying his health with drugs, would you kepp letting him do drugs? Also, drugs can hurt more than the person using it. Marijuana impairs judgement, which can mean a weed-smoker may do many other bad things; such as getting in a car, fight someone, or decide to drink a huge amount of alchohol causing even more problems and danger for the people around him. Not to mention the could get the employees high off of secondhand, which can cause even more endangerment to the general public, since they'll be too high to monitor the druggies.

Final Argument:
In the previous round, I asked you if you knew what the medical effects of drugs are, to which you didn't answer. Here are the syptoms.

Marijuana/pot/weed:
http://www.healthline.com...

Meth:
http://drugabuse.com...

Cocaine or Crack:
http://www.drugfreeworld.org...

Heroin:
http://www.narconon.org...

Ecstasy/molly:
http://drugabuse.com...

Morphine:
https://www.drugs.com...

Dopamine:
https://www.drugs.com...

As you can see, they aren't very good at all.

Please vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SimDim888 1 year ago
SimDim888
Congrats on the debate. Thankyou for it but obviously you have no experience in the world of drugs and if you did you would realise that this is the only way to move forward. The war on drugs is lost so we need to approach it in a way of harm minimisation. That was my argument. I was not contradicting myself, harm minimisation is not about winning the war its just about making sure it stops getting worse
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
@AmericanDiest: He's had so many self-defeating arguments and contradictions that it's just sad.
Posted by AmericanDeist 1 year ago
AmericanDeist
"...take drugs with clean equipment and nurses so that there is no chance of overdose."

"...5,000 of those people have overdosed..."

WTF?! LOL!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by subdeo 1 year ago
subdeo
SimDim888MharmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Behavior was about tied, so were spelling errors. Also, arguments were about equally strong. However, Con used more sources, so he earned this point.
Vote Placed by warren42 1 year ago
warren42
SimDim888MharmanTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never addresses the fact that the Pro side saves 15,000 lives. This was unrefuted. Con essentially says "drugs are bad!" but gives no way to address the current issue, just that we need to find a better way. In the end, the impacts are Pro: 15,000 lives saved, Con defends the status quo and a very ambiguous plan that may or may not work, we have no way of finding out. I vote Pro because Con provides no unique benefits, while Pro provides the enormous 15,000 lives saved.