The Instigator
magikkell
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The Drug Policy in Singapore is at Least as Good as the Drug Policy in Portugal

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 7 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 26661
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (7)

 

magikkell

Pro

This is a debate about two of the most radically different drug policies currently in place.

Singapore famously has no tolerance for drugs and imposes the death penalty for possession of anything in "trafficking amounts." In addition, "The possession, consumption, manufacturing, import, export, or trafficking of these and other controlled drugs in any amount are illegal. Persons caught with less than the Mandatory Death Penalty amounts of these controlled substances face penalties ranging from caning (up to 24 strokes) to life in prison."

In Portugal, "The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance."

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will basically be arguing that the policy in Singapore is better. The reason I framed the topic as "at least as good" is to prevent CON from simply arguing that no policy is ever better than another. Of course, I won't be arguing that either, so if I do, vote down conduct, trolling, whatever.
BOP should thus be evenly divided.


I would also like to state that CON should accept that there are better and worse policies. Do not accept this debate if you were planning on arguing for nihilism or relativism about policies. You can of course argue for some kind of anarchism, as you would then argue that "no policy" is best, and that Portugal comes closer to that. This would still be some kind of realism about the normative status of policies.


What IS up for debate are the criteria for what makes a policy good. I expect the debate to be about a) what makes a policy good, b) what makes a drug policy good, and c) to what extend the policies in Portugal and Singapore fulfill the criterion laid out in b).

If PRO or CON fails to establish how empirical facts about these countries relate to what makes policy, or drug policy, good or bad, then that side has not made a complete argument.

Some definitions:

Portugal, Singapore - The countries

Drugs - whatever substances the laws in Portugal and Singapore under discussion (de-)regulate

Policy - laws/regulations in a country

Better policy/ at least as good as a policy - up for debate


Round 1: Acceptance/Definition/Clarification

Round 2: Opening Statements

Round 3: Rebuttal/New Arguments

Round 4: Final Rebuttal/Closing Statement/No New Arguments

Finally, if you think you can still wiggle in a semantic argument after all those clarifications, then be my guest, but I'm not going down without a fight.
socialpinko

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
magikkell

Pro

magikkell forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

I'll extend as I don't think Pro plans on forfeiting the entire debate. If Pro forfeits the next round though I'll introduce a preliminary case of my own.
Debate Round No. 2
magikkell

Pro

magikkell forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

My argument will basically be that there's a presumption in favor of freedom to do things that don't directly harm or interfere with the liberty of others. This includes drug use. Therefore the optimal point of government intervention in people's decision whether or not to ingest drugs would be nil. By contrast, Singapore's policy is the opposite of this. Portugal's drug policy isn't 100% in accordance with liberty, but it's a far stretch better than Singapore's.

There is a strong natural presumption in favor of self ownership. It's an intuitive thought that we and only we own ourselves. This line of reasoning leads us to favor prohibition against things like murder, rape, and slavery. But besides our own natural inclinations, self ownership is a necessary presupposition for argumentation.

In order to debate freely, one requires access and control over one's person. Otherwise it's not you arguing but someone else through you. Therefore, anyone arguing against self ownership is negating themselves since they're in effect denying the presupposition necessary for them to engage in argumentation in the first place. Any argument along the lines of "self ownership does not exist" or the like is thus implicitly contradictory.

Now from here the rest of the argument proceeds naturally. If we're self owners than the best policy is that which most respects our self ownership. Portugal through decriminalization is much closer in this respect than Singapore (which includes capital punishment as a possible punishment).

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
magikkell

Pro

magikkell forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I hate both
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I'll take this but I have to wait for ten minutes since I just accepted an open debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and better arguments by Spinko, although I don't agree with his assessment of Singapore.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: A forfeited debate is no debate at all. This is just too bad.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: SFF
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
magikkellsocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: