The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended.

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 10 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,688 times Debate No: 20276
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

mongeese

Pro

Resolved, that the federal government should end its current War on Drugs.

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

This debate will start in Round 2; Round 1 is for acceptance only.

Good luck, 16kadams.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, 16kadams, for accepting this debate.

Contention 1+: Expense

The federal government currently spends $23.44 billion dollars per year to fund the War on Drugs [1], and that's not even counting any possible economic gains from people not being imprisoned and turning to a life of crime (statistically more likely to occur when people are jailed even for non-violent offenses [2]) and instead continuing their life contributing to the economy, nor does it include any gains from taxing a newly regulated drug industry in whichever states would have them.

Contention 2+: Rights

People have a right to their own bodies, and the right to put what they want into their own bodies. Drugs are no exception. The federal government should not be restricting people's rights. It's dangerous once government controls what may or may not go into your brain, for this is a power easily abused.

Additionally, the current drug war is unconstitutional. It took the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol [3], but no such amendment currently exists for the prohibition of drugs. Additionally, the 10th Amendment leaves all unenumerated powers to the states [4], leaving them with the responsibility of either prohibiting or regulating the drug industry.

Contention 3+: Negative Effects

Many people die as a result of the drug war, including even people who wish to use any drugs deemed illegal [5]. The drug war sends drug users and dealers underground, resulting in more organised crime, violence (drug cartels can't use the legal system to settle disputes), corruption, spread of disease, and other social problems [6]. Additionally, the prohibition only encourages smuggling by lowering the legal supply, which leads to an illegal, thus with more risk, cost, and profit, supply. As former federal nartotics officer Michael Levine
describes:

"I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers. They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable. The only U.S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program. On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it “a sham put on for the American taxpayer” that was actually “good for business” [7].

Conclusion +:

The War on Drugs is basically paying billions of dollars illegally to strict the rights of Americans, kill many of them either directly or indirectly, spread social problems, and grant higher profits to drug cartels.

That will be all for now. Your turn, 16kadams.

1. http://actionamerica.org...;

2. http://www.mosac.mo.gov...;

3. http://www.law.cornell.edu...;

4. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...;

5. http://www.drugwarrant.com...;

6. http://www.bmj.com...

7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
16kadams

Con

Will present my case first, if I have mm refute later:

C1: the war on drugs has worked

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked. [1]

Oh BTW to avoid plagerism issues a footnote=quote from source or near quote.

Now governmental stats:

However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards. [2]

Legalizing drugs would lead to more users:

Additionally, the normalization of marijuana seems to have an effect on the production of the drug. Jansen notes that the annual Nederweit (high potency Dutch-grown marijuana) crop is about 100 tons a year -- almost all grown illegally -- of which 65 tons is exported. [3]
So it is made more when legalized. This generally means higher demand.

The normalization of marijuana in Europe has officials increasingly worried. A European Union working group on drug policy issued a draft resolution in July of 2004 identifying marijuana as "European drug problem number one" [3]

This means the people using it are high in Europe, where it is usually legal.

C2: There is no right to drugs

First, we don't have the right to do anything we want with our body. Can I walk down the street naked? Can I say what I want anywhere I want? (if you said "yes" to the last question, try yelling "hijack" on a plane and get back to me.) [4]

It is technically only a american right if the Constitution says so.

Also the Constitution does state a right usually cannot hurt other people, drugs hurt many people:

PCP is phencyclidine, and is actually formed from a much more complex drug that was originally developed for use as an anesthetic. And yes, the drug can numb users to the point where they can become extremely dangerous to those around them. Sometimes people dip marijuana joints into liquid PCP or combine it with other drugs such as crack. [5]

So people around you when your stark raving mad, affect them.

When you do drugs, you are putting your life and someone else's life in danger. Drugs can affect your health, your family, your friends, your finances and your career. [6]

So having a war on drugs is a public safety issue as well a a personal health issue.

Of those who had been arrested for a serious crime, 46% had used marijuana within the past year[7]

This means someone else was effected hurt, killed, raped etc possibly because of drug use.

C3: Crime

There is a general belief that the drug-crime link is causal. More importantly, it is assumed that drug use causes crime. The criminological evidence to support this belief is not as strong as some might imagine. In fact, the best available research has generally concluded that the relationship is extremely complex and defies attempts to sort out directionality. [8]

This is kinda given, drugs that make you dumber and crazier and less reactant to pain will make you feel above the law, invincible, and mess with your brain. It may cause you to do things you would not have done otherwise

Dr Seena Fazel, a clinical senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist at the University of Oxford, said: "The relationship between violent crime and serious mental illness can be explained by alcohol and substance abuse. If you take away the substance abuse, the contribution of the illness itself is minimal." [9]

drugs cause violence.

C4: Cost

In the year 2000, drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion. [10]

Now you claim most of the cost is n the law enforcement, which is a falsity. Actually only 3% of the drug war is law enforcement. As seen in my 10th source. The rest is rehab and treatment, which you probably support, therefore legalizing it wouldn't change sending to any huge degree.

C5: possible economic detriment when legalized

In addition, legalization—and the increased addiction it would spawn—would result in lost workforce productivity—and the unpredictable damage that it would cause to the American economy. [10]
In 2000, productivity losses due to drug abuse cost the economy $110 billion. [10]

So as the source states, drug usage would increase. So the drug usage already hurts us, legalization would make it worse.

well I am tired and will refute next round.

=conclusion=
legalizing drugs is a bad idea as mentioned above. Vote con.

sources:

http://www.forbes.com... [1]
http://www.justice.gov... [2]
http://www.opposingviews.com... [3]
http://www.gargaro.com... [4]
http://www.drug-rehabcenter.com... [5]
http://www.nwitimes.com... [6]
http://www.redstate.com... [7]
http://www.aic.gov.au... [8]
http://www.guardian.co.uk... [9]
http://www.justice.gov... [10]
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, 16kadams, for your response.

Contention 1-: The War on Drugs has worked

My opponent's first claim is that Portugal's decision to end its own war on drugs, replacing it with decriminalization and treatment, worked. This gives no reason to believe the war worked; in fact, it's quite the opposite, because if ending the war improves things unexpectedly, then continuing the war will not.

He also gives statistics on our own War on Drugs, pointing out that drug abuse went down about a third in twenty years, which is unimpressive compared to Portugal's 50% reduction in only ten years [1]. In fact, many countries see reduction in drug abuse after decriminalizing laws on particular drugs [2][3].

The seemingly important fact about cocaine usage dropping is more likely due to trends in drug use than any particular policy, being replaced by other drugs such as herion [4].

I find the fact that 95% of Americans do not use drugs unimpressive, as there is no indication at all that this was due to any action of government and countries without such massive wars on drugs have similar statistics.

My opponent points to the (notably illegal) production of marijuana in the Netherlands, but it means nothing. Just because 100 tons were grown in one year doesn't mean that it is grown more than before, especially not relative to the rising population. My opponent is drawing a line from a single point; this is just bad math [5].

The "normalization" argument is just about the only legitimate objection to legalizing drugs, although it evidently does not occur in every society that decriminalizes drugs, but this is most definitely outweighed by the immense societal and economics costs of continuing the War on Drugs.

Contention 1+: The War on Drugs is expensive

My opponent claims that drug abuse costs so much money to American society, but the important question is, how? It is impossible to refute the claim without knowing what calculations went into it. Did they include what people could have been producing, but didn't, because they were high? If so, they made the mistake of disregarding psychic income (personal statisfaction from an activity [6]) and only focusing on monetary income; there is no reason to take their priorities over those of the American people. The sum also most likely includes the $110 billion "lost" to job productivity, even though my opponent tries to recreate this as a separate contention.

While law enforcement costs may be lower than the total cost of the War on Drugs ($2.6 billion per year a few years ago [7]), that's still a lot of money, and there's no reason that the federal government should be involved in prevention and treatment when the states can handle that perfectly well if they so choose.

My opponent also failed to address my concerns of the economic loss of jailing non-violent offenders, which includes both the cost of prison and the loss of production later in life and can lead to more damage to society by creating criminals. This does not offer the psychic income alternative, as I doubt anyone prefers being in jail to leading a productive life.

Contention 2+: People have a right to drugs

My opponent's examples of where we can't do anything we want with our bodies miss the point. Nudity is only illegal in public; no just government will outlaw being nude in your own house. Additionally, people can yell "hijack" all they want in their own homes; on airlines, however, people voluntarily give up their right to yell "hijack" so that the airplane industry allows them on the planes. There is no rights issue with an airline annoucing that those who ride on their planes may yell "hijack" to their hearts' content.

He then demonstrates that he has quite likely never read the United States Constitution. He first claims that all American rights are listed in the Constitution, but nothing could be further from the truth; the Constitution even specifically states that there are rights not listed in the Constitution through the Ninth Amendment, which was appropriately enough written to avoid the very implication for which my opponent argues [8]. I have also never read anything in the Constitution stating any generalities about rights, although my opponent is free to show us where such a statement exists. In any case, the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from being involved, period. Drug policy is up to the states.

I should add that states retain the right to continue the war on drugs within their own borders; this debate only concerns the federal government. The states can continue to inhibit drug use to prevent whetever concerns my opponent chooses to raise, but this would at least return that power to the individual states instead of the federal government. If the people of California think marijuana should be legal, then such is their right, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for drug enforcement in Massachusetts.

My opponent claims that drugs hurt people, but this is false. People hurt people. Non-violent people can become unintentionally dangerous when they use cars, matches, power tools, guns, alcohol, and some other drugs, but does that mean that we should wage war on all of these things? Not at all. We tried Prohibition, but that failed miserably [9], and we see the same effects today.

My opponent also points out that drug use can have negative effects on others, but so can going skydiving, joining a rock band, giving up a diet, not showering, overworking, or going without sleep for extended periods of time, but it would be a folly to introduce government regulation to stop these private decisions. The effects mentioned are all either negative effects already consented to by the party taking the drug, peer pressure that is still up to the individual to follow or not follow, and driving under the influence, which would still be illegal even if the federal government abolished every activity it currently performs.

Contention 2-: Drugs promote crime

My opponent's source actually suggests that the relationship between drug use and crime is very complex and not fully understood, but my opponent in spite of it concludes that drug use causes crimes. Milton Friedman observed that crime committed by addicts is necessitated by their addiction combined with the high cost of drugs resulting from criminalization, so less regulation would lead to less crime. Ending the drug war would also lower the profits of black markets and greatly reduce their ability to bribe policemen [10]. Therefore, it is not drugs, but the War on Drugs, that promotes crime.

Contention 3+: The War on Drug has many unintended consequences

I already pointed out how the War on Drugs kills many innocent bystanders [11, my previous link broke through a glitch]. Some of them were model citizens, and none of them deserved to die. I also pointed out how the War results in a plethora of other social problems and even strengthens the most powerful drug cartels. My opponent has apparently neglected this contention; I should hope he addresses it next round.

Conclusion: The War on Drugs is an unconstitutional barrage on our rights that degrades society and kills many good, innocent people, and should be ended as soon as possible.

1. http://www.forbes.com...;
2. http://www.reuters.com...
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk...;
4. http://www.infoplease.com...
5. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com...;
6. http://www.unc.edu...
7. http://www.cnbc.com...;
8. http://civilliberty.about.com...;
9. http://www.cato.org...
10. http://www.druglibrary.org...
11. http://www.drugwarrant.com...
16kadams

Con

This is my first drug debate, I have enjoyed it :)

"In fact, many countries see reduction in drug abuse after decriminalizing laws on particular drugs"

The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure. [1]

During our drug war there has been huge decreases.

Also the dutch already had low drug rates before the legalization. If drugs where legilized their demand would usually go up:

It’s clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse. [2]

So taxing it actually raises users.


.The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. [2]

Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska’s residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay. [2]

illegilizing it loweed user rate, allowing it rose user rate.

We can win the drug war without resorting to legalization, as shown by the consistent decrease in drug use from 1979 and 1992. [3]


"The sum also most likely includes the $110 billion "lost" to job productivity, even though my opponent tries to recreate this as a separate contention."

It would hurt the economy:

It would cost society 140-210 billion dollars a year if it was legilized. [4]

The #1 medical problem in the US is substance abuse [5]

I have proven legilizie would = more users, so allowing it would raise ER and mediaid costs, hurting the tax payer.

"My opponent claims that drug abuse costs so much money to American society, but the important question is, how?"

1, lowers users
2. in turn lower ER costs
3. in turn as that would lower aggrivasion rates
4. in turn helping the economy
5. in turn less junkies

A few billion spread out beetween 300,000,000 people isn't much of a tax. Also it benifits them so what the heck.

"My opponent also failed to address my concerns of the economic loss of jailing non-violent offenders, which includes both the cost of prison and the loss of production later in life and can lead to more damage to society by creating criminals."

I never saw it until now, but many f them (when on drugs are violent) :

Chronic marijuana use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses - including addiction - stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. [6]

Some users will increase their dose in an attempt to intensify and prolong the euphoria, but this can also increase the risk of adverse psychological or physiological effects. [7] (this was for cocaine)

Long-term use can lead to mood disturbances, violent behavior, anxiety, confusion, insomnia, and severe dental problems. [8]
(for meth)

So drug usage leads to violence so if those people stayed on the drug because it was legal then they WOULD become violent. Also you mentioned the drug cartelles. Legalization would not stop them:


Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. Marijuana legalization has many merits, but it would do little to hinder the long-term economics of the cartels — and the violent toll they take on Mexican society. [9]

it would not stop them.


Also only a small percentag of people in jail are drug offenders:

Actually, only 5 percent of inmates in federal prison on drug charges are incarcerated for drug possession. [10]




"My opponent's examples of where we can't do anything we want with our bodies miss the point."

It IS the point. If drugs where legal people would be allowed to do it anywhare, smokers smoke on the roads, alchohilcs drink on the streets. If it wa slegalized people would do it anywhere. You say "in the home" you never specified this. So techincally they theoratically (and would) do it in the streets. So my remarks about doing it publicly still stand.

It is also not a right as it infinges other peoples lifes, the family, the person. Now how does it do it? The increased aggression and other problems affect others and infinge upon their rights. So why let it be a right if it takes aways rights to others? It is not a right. [11]

Also 90% pf reported child abusers are drug users too. [12]


"His drugs promotes crime"

I have some sources from some of the most credible people in this argument on this issue, but let's go with other ones:

Substance-abusing youth are at higher risk than nonusers for mental health problems, including depression, conduct problems, personality disorders, suicidal thoughts, attempted suicide, and suicide. [13]

It mentions conduct problems.

A study conducted in 1988 in Washington, D.C., found youth who sold and used drugs were more likely to commit crimes than those who only sold drugs or only used drugs. [13]


"unintended consequences"

I have proven drugs make people more suseptable to do crime, therefore legalization would raise crime. So legalizing it won't help. Also I showed legalizing it woudl not end the drug cartells. Legalization would hve little or no effects on crime, orit would raise crime.

=conclusion=

The war on drugs should continue, there is no right to drugs, it is benificial, it lowers user, and legalizing it would hurt many other things. Also The war on drugsdoes EVERYTHING it was meant to do, lower users.







sources:

http://www.cnbc.com... [1]
http://www.justice.gov... [2]
http://www.gargaro.com... [3]
U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization 32. [4]
Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, prepared for The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey, October 1993: 8-16. [5]
http://www.drugabuse.gov... [6]
http://www.drugabuse.gov... [7]
http://www.drugabuse.gov... [8]
http://www.nytimes.com... [9]
http://www.justice.gov... [10]
U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization 57. [11]
U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Legalization 57. [12]
http://www.ojjdp.gov... [13]
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

Thank you, 16kadams, for this debate. I hope you'll reconsider your stance on drugs after this debate.

Contention 1-: The War on Drugs has worked

I'm aware that marijuana use went down, but there is no evidence that this is due to the Drug War. Correlation does not mean causation, after all. According to Milton Friedman, marijuana use actually went down in Alaska through legalization [1]. Additionally, much of the high drug usage occurred before people really knew how dangerous drugs like morphine were; in this age of information, we wouldn't have that problem. Besides, while normalization may occur, the many negatives of the Drug War are not worth this one positive.

My opponent claims that "taxing [drugs] actually raises users, but he gives no evidence for this.

He also claims that the drug war can be "won," but evidently not everyone is deterred from using drugs by the law, or else the war would already be won.

My opponent claims that substance abuse is America's #1 health problem (which is really odd if the war is working), but a Google search reveals that this could also be stress [2], obesity [3], or a lack of sleep; that's not an invitation for government to regulate all of those aspects of our life. It isn't the role of government to keep us healthy, but to protect our rights.

Contention 1+: The War on Drugs is expensive

My opponent does not refute that drugs may contribute to psychic income instead of monetary income, making his monetary measurements invalid.

My opponent claims that emergency room costs would increase, but this is doubtful. With legalization, it would be easier for addicts to seek help for their problems, and it would be easier for people to get information on safe use of drugs. Milton Friedman pointed out how a pregnant mother would be able to talk to a doctor about her addiction and get the prenatal care her child needs [1]; this would occur at all levels of addiction.

Regarding aggravation rates, "[t]he violence is due to prohibition and nothing else. How much violence is there surrounding the alcohol trade?" [1].

My opponent cites a study claiming that drug use may indicate exposure to violence, but it does not conclusively link drug use to more violence; in fact, they may both simply correlate with exposure to violence. Users would be less likely to overdose if they could get adequate instruction on drug use, but this can't happen without legalization.

It's true that long term use of a drug can lead to personality changes, but the same is true for alcohol and many legal drugs, and yet alcohol is still legal.

Now, the "few billion" dollars over the American population is actually about $700 over each individual's average lifespan, which is fairly significant.

Contention 2+: People have a right to drugs

My opponent claims that "if drugs were legal, people would be allowed to do it anywhere," but this is simply not true. Again, refer to nudity, which is legal on people's private property, but not in public, and there isn't currently some outbreak of nudity in the streets.

Again, the drug use itself does not infringe upon anyone's rights.The resulting violence could, but I've already listed many currently legal things that people have a right to use that can also accidentally result in harm to others; my opponent never contested this, and thus drops the argument.

My opponent entirely fails to address the constitutional problems of the War on Drugs; it is entirely unconstitutional. Any anti-drug action is left to the states.

Contention 2-: Drugs promote crime

My opponent claims that the drug cartels would not be harmed long-term by legalization, but that is only because they have other sources of revenue. It would still weaken them in at least some respect, and the violence specifically caused by the illegal marijuana trade would still go away. Naturally, stopping the cartels completely would be much more complicated. I even quoted in my first round a cartel chief saying the drug war was "good for business."

I can't read my opponent's source regarding child abuse, but I would guess that the drug most of the child abusers used was alcohol, which is currently legal, so that contention is useless.

Contention 3+: The War on Drugs has many unintended consequences.

My opponent has little refutation here. He doesn't address the numerous tragic deaths caused by the War on Drugs. He hasn't proven that increased drug use in a legal environment would raise crime. The drug cartels would still operate if their drugs were legalized, but that's only because they're involved in other things; the drug violence itself would stop.

He also failed to address the increased corruption of policemen and law officials, the spread of disease, the conversion of many people from non-violent drug use to a life of crime, etc.

Conclusion: I have shown how much of the violence of drugs, well as other societal problems, are caused by the War on Drugs itself, which uses our money for an unconstitutional and therefore illegal purpose. Therefore, the federal War on Drugs should be ended. Vote PRO!

1. http://www.druglibrary.org...
2. http://www.stress.org...
3. http://www.cnbc.com...
4. http://articles.cnn.com...
16kadams

Con

R1: the drug war has worked

Here is an example where the drug war has worked:

Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States. Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States. Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits. [1]

So also you talk about correlation, well what you said is a correlation. Also theory's + logic+ correlation does = causation.

Furthermore you say after the legalization of drugs in Alaska users dropped, false:

The court’s ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state’s 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. [4]




The theory of deterrence:

Deterrence is a theory from behavioral psychology about preventing or controlling actions or behavior through fear of punishment or retribution. This theory of criminology is shaping the criminal justice system of the United States and various other countries. [2]

The drug war causes fear and punishment, lowering users. legalization would raise the amount of users as there would be none of this psychological aspect.

Also the reason taxing the drugs would raise users is because there would not be a punishment for drug usage. The reason is above.

For your won comment:

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan adopted a national drug strategy that took a comprehensive approach consisting of five components: international cooperation, research, strengthened law enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, and prevention and education. It was remarkably successful: Illegal drug use by young adults dropped more than 50 percent. [3]

So can it be won? maybe but drug usage would lower.

drugs can still be a health problem if they are illegal, or legal. The source doesn't say it is the problem due to users, it is a problem due to the effects. Also here is proof that the war is working:

Illegal drug users: 11 million
Tobacco: 66 million
alcohol: 109 million [4]

The legal ones have more users, the illegal ones have less. So the illegalization efforts keep the rate low.

R2: cost

In the year 2000, drug abuse cost American society an estimated $160 billion. [5]

got that?

Legalization would result in skyrocketing costs that would be paid by American taxpayers and consumers. Legalization would significantly increase drug use and addiction—and all the social costs that go with it. [5]

So it would raise taxes therefore lowering income. So your "it helps the eonomy" is false as it would raise taxes even on the psychics.

In 2008, marijuana alone was involved in 375,000 emergency room visits. [3]

So there are already a lot of people that go to the ER for marijuana use, legalizing it would raise users (as I have proved) therefore logically raising the amount of ER visits. SO of the 4 million marijuana users 400,000 (approx) go to the ER, if you legalize it according to [5] users would double . So there would've 8 million users, so the number of ER visits would double too to 800,000 (approx). SO logically ER x=visits would rise.

You link drugs to alcohol. Alcohol and meth cause totally different things. Also alcohol has little taxation, legalization advocates call for massive taxation on drugs, so it would stay violent.

For drugs cause violence:

A 1997 FBI study of violence against law enforcement officers found that 24 percent of the assailants were under the influence of drugs at the time they attacked the officers and that 72 percent of the assailants had a history of drug law violations. [6]

Causes violence.

Many scientific studies also support the connection between drug use and crime. One study investigated state prisoners who had five or more convictions. These are hardened criminals. It found that four out of every five of them used drugs regularly. [6]

Drugs make you violent making you cause crime.

Your alcohol statement:

Sometimes the environment you’re drinking in can increase the chances of both becoming aggressive and of being exposed to alcohol-fuelled violence [7]

It says alcohol is weak unless taken in large substances in the article, and people only get super affected by alcohol when in noisy bars. A small dose of meth will make you go crazed, a glass of wine wouldn't.

Cost (last your argument)

700$ over a life span. Let's use 70 years:

10$ per year is not significant.

In FY 2002, the total federal drug budget was $11.5 billion. [7]

Also the funny thing is you say legalization would end law enforcement on drugs, false:

Legalizers also fail to mention that, unless drugs are made available to children, law enforcement will still be needed to deal with the sale of drugs to minors. [7]

Also legalization would raise costs:

Criminal justice costs would likely increase if drugs were legalized. It is quite likely that violent crime would significantly increase with greater accessibility to dangerous drugs — whether the drugs themselves are legal or not. [7]

So basically if you are talking costs keep it illegal.

R3: right to drugs

You keep using nudity, use a viable example. Tobacco a legal drug. Tobacco can be used almost anywhere, alcohol can be used almost anywhere, so would drugs.

I have contested this. Also I have proven ALL drugs cause violence towards people.

The Act makes no express exception for drugs used by the terminally ill and no implied exemption is necessary to attain congressional objectives or to avert an unreasonable reading of the terms "safe" and "effective" in 201 (p) (1). Pp. 551-559. [8]

A US law act (see source for info) said there is no right to a drug unless truly needed. No constitutional right.

Also:

Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. von Eschenbach was resolved in early 2008 when the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the appeal. Their refusal left standing the appellate court decision, which said that patients have no right to "a potentially toxic drug with no proven therapeutic benefit." [9]

No right to drugs unless needed.

R4: drugs and crime

Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. [10]

Legalization =/= less cartels. (low on room gotta rush this)

it wasn't a link just c/p it into google.

R5: unintended consequences

I have proven drugs cause crime, more people on drugs would raise crime. Also legalization would not end the cartels *see above* . Also source 10 shows legalization would not shrink the cartels, they would just make crack shops. It also shows the black market would remain similar legal or not. [10]


You offered no proof on the corruption of police really. Further more they have less corruption of them, but corruption of politicians to lower the tax, that is worse, legalization is worse corruption wise.

conclusion:

vote con (no room for conclusion)


http://www.justice.gov... [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
http://www.heritage.org... [3]
http://www.justice.gov... [4]
http://www.justice.gov... [5]
http://www.justice.gov... [6]
http://www.justice.gov... [7]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... [8]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]
http://www.justice.gov... [10]
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I remember this
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ok... Either way your gonna win so it's ok.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
By his vote, it was kind of implied that he thought my articulation was better.

While "articulate" may usually refer to speaking, in this context it obviously refers to phrasing of sentences and such similar things.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
He never specified you, he said "well articulated debate".

Also articulation means can speak well. http://i.word.com...
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Calling me more "well-articulated" is hardly a poor RFD for voting only on spelling and grammar, and it's not like he was going against the common opinion with that vote.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
His sg point counters wills poor rfd
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
"Both had grammar mistakes, the sg point counters I will vote and poor reasons"

What are you trying to say here, Angelo?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I knew I lost he convinced me.
Posted by Mr_Anon 5 years ago
Mr_Anon
To vmpire321's vote, "more sources" does not necessarily mean "better sources". I usually don't judge source quality, but that's just something you should consider.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
*sighs*
What's with all these votes claiming 16k didn't say drugs are bad?

" And yes, the drug can numb users to the point where they can become extremely dangerous to those around them."

...I could find more...

I'm gonna vote now.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
mongeese16kadamsTied
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: I feel Con's line of reasoning was supported by his sources. Quantitative data beat out the qualitative data of Pro. Several of Pro's sources did not work either. Additionally, Con's rationale of legalization would lead to more users was not sufficiently refuted.
Vote Placed by Angelo 5 years ago
Angelo
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 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: Arguments where to close to call until the end where con had a comeback did what pro said he didn't do then added on to his arguments. He then proved legalization would raise users. So arguments barely con. Also both had great sources, con used more though. Both had grammar mistakes, the sg point counters I will vote and poor reasons
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: This one's a tie. I couldn't decide who had the best arguments, both had great points to them. Tie.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had grammatical errors, but CON had more. CON's arguments either contributed to PRO or lacked meaningful impact. Both sides used reliable sources, but CON used more.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
mongeese16kadamsTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's tendency to fill the majority of his round with external material and quotes. Arguments to Pro for maintaining each of his original contentions throughout the debate. Con's attacks on these points either missed the point entirely or were backed with faulty logic. None of Con's points survived Pro's cross examination.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: if con had brought up the dangerous effects of the illegal drugs on America's youth he would have easily won, however the arguments resulted in a stalemate as the arguments evolved into a debate about the right to drugs and the cost which neither side proved to be more convincing. as for sources my tally was 22-33 in favor of the con, so he gets sources... Good debate though :)
Vote Placed by lliwill 5 years ago
lliwill
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Well articulated debate
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know about this one. In my eyes, CON showed that drugs harm us, but pro counterred by saying the drug war has unintended effects (Perhaps con could have said 'modify' it....) The main argument that won me over was that PRO stated it's unconstitutional but CON failed to adress this issue. However, CON did use a ton of sources.
Vote Placed by Mr_Anon 5 years ago
Mr_Anon
mongeese16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really explained WHY marijauna was wrong, and why it should be banned and alcohol and tobacco should be left legal.
Vote Placed by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
mongeese16kadamsTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never proves that legalization would cause increased usage, so all of his other points about the bad things drugs cause are void. Also, Con has obviously never read the US Consitution, and couldn't adequately refute Pro's argument.