The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
ajborn2act10
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The United States federal government should legalize soft drugs including marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,065 times Debate No: 4189
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

libertarian

Pro

soft drug - A drug that is believed to be nonaddictive and less damaging to the health than a hard drug.

Examples of soft drugs include cannabis, mescaline, psilocybin, and LSD. MDMA and caffeine are sometimes included as soft drugs, see above. The term soft drug is most usually applied to cannabis (marijuana or hashish).

In 1997, Charles Manson, America's most notorious convicted mass murderer, was caught dealing drugs in California's Corcoran State Prison. Locked in a steel cage, watched by armed guards, and subject to random drug testing and strip searches, Manson was still able to build a flourishing narcotics business. It makes you wonder: If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't. Not for the lack of effort. In 2001, the federal government spent $18 billion fighting the War on Drugs. More than 19,000 state and local police officers work full-time on drug cases. Despite all of this money and firepower, 82% of high school seniors say that getting marijuana is "fairly" or "very" easy--a number that hasn't budged in 20 years. But the War on Drugs isn't just a failure. It's also a threat to your safety. In 2000, for example, 734,497 Americans were arrested on marijuana-related charges. That same year, only 625,243 violent criminals were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault (according to FBI figures). In other words, the War on Drugs is making your family less safe because police spend their time arresting marijuana smokers instead of apprehending brutal thugs.
(Arizona Libertarian Party)

We spent trillions on the War on Drugs this year alone. That money could be going to education or something else productive.
http://www.rense.com......

We could tax drugs. That would be a tremendous amount of money. trials are very lengthy. If there were less cases, then trials would be quicker.

The War on Terror suffers from the War on Drugs because we cannot afford both and the War on Drugs distracts from the War on terror.
http://www.commondreams.org......

IN THE NETHERLANDS SOFT DRUGS ARE LEGAL.
The following points are from: http://www.drugwarfacts.org.......

In the Netherlands, where drugs are legal, lifetime soft drug prevalence is halved.
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Our incarceration rate is 7 times higher. Drug laws cause violence, crime and higher incarceration.
Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List

We spend 150 million more Euros than the Netherlands on crime annually.
van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control"

They're homicide rate is 5 times lower in the Netherlands.
Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001,"
ajborn2act10

Con

Your argument for legalizing the "softer drugs" is that the drug is "less damaging to the health than a hard drug." However although it is less damaging it is still damaging. It is kinda like tobacco. No it is not as damaging as say Meth but it still causes thousands of deaths each year. There are 47 million smokers in the U.S.A. This is because it is easy to get. A lot of people are completely addicted to tobacco simply because they decided to try it and now cannot quit. I have many friends who have tried numerous times to quit but have been unable. One of these reason is because tobacco is easy to get. The only restriction on it is the under 18 rule. Also by it being illegal it may not deter everyone but it will deter some people. If it is legalized more people will become addicted to it. Also softer drugs usually lead to hard drugs such as speed and Meth. And other thing such as population contribute to crime rate therefor you cannot say there crime rate is lower because of drugs.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

>>> Your argument for legalizing the "softer drugs" is that the drug is "less damaging to the health than a hard drug."

+++ This is an untrue assumption. I support the legalisation of hard drugs, but that is not what this debate is about. It's about soft drugs.

>>> However although it is less damaging it is still damaging.

+++ Everybody knows that drugs can sometimes be harmful. If someone chooses to engage in drug utilization, that is their choice. America is a land of the people and for the people. The Constitution uses the word "not" to restrict government 22 times. America is built based on the basis of freedom, not restriction.

+++ Smoking tobacco is far more harmful than substances like marijuana. If smoking is legal, so should soft drugs.

>>> A lot of people are completely addicted to tobacco simply because they decided to try it and now cannot quit.

+++ By definition, soft drugs are not addictive. Of course, anything can be addictive: coffee, sex, etc. But soft drugs are not medically addictive like tabacco.

>>> One of these reason is because tobacco is easy to get.

+++ Marijuana and other soft drugs are also very easy to get. Depending on your environment, they are easier to get than tobacco.

+++ If soft drugs were legal, minors would be virtually incapable of getting them, because that would be the law.

>>> Also softer drugs usually lead to hard drugs such as speed and Meth.

+++ It is an American person's decision if they choose to use hard drugs. Besides, as I have proven, soft drug legalisation, lowers the usage prevalence. In Amsterdam, as I stated, in round 1, soft drugs were halved in utilization. Also, hard drug usage is significantly more than halved. The 'gateway drug' argument is flawed.

[US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109] [www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]

>>> And other thing such as population contribute to crime rate therefor you cannot say there crime rate is lower because of drugs.

+++ What!? Their incarceration rate is 7 times lower, after legalising soft drugs! I've used two sources. You just said "nuh uh."

[Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3]
[www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]

YOU JUST TOLD A STORY THAT REALLY DID NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE. YOU ALSO NEVER REBUTTED THESE POINTS. IF YOU DO NOT REBUT THESE POINTS, I WILL WIN THIS DEBATE:

*** The War on Drugs does not even work. If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't.
[Arizona Libertarian Party]

*** The War on Drugs costs billions (not trillions as I mistyped earlier) of dollars.
[National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001.]
[http:// www. drugsense. org/ wodclock. htm]

*** The War on Drugs makes it very difficult to win the war on terror, because they are both so costly and the War on Drugs uses national intelligence resources.
[Commonsense.org = Can't Win War on Terror Fighting a War on Drugs]

*** We spend 150 million more Euros than the Netherlands on crime annually.
[van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control"]

*** They're homicide rate is 5 times lower in the Netherlands.
[Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001,"]

Vote PRO for the better debater and better position.
ajborn2act10

Con

Okay well yes the war on drugs used money that could have been spent in other places... but we ar3e not debating weather or not the government spends it's money well. Also there are several websites that state that weed is a gateway drug so if i wanted to do what you are doing and simply go and find those websites nothing you have said has come from your own oppinion you simply stated website quote after website quote so in all honesty this debate seems pointless to me.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

>>> the war on drugs used money that could have been spent in other places... but we ar3e not debating weather or not the government spends it's money well.

+++ The topic is about the fact that the United States should legalise soft drugs. The utilization of money is included in the topic, for sure.

>>> Also there are several websites that state that weed is a gateway drug

+++ Well, find one. Take the time to debate. But I've said that Americans have the brain capacity to decide what they put in their mouths, which is common sense an obvious logic.

>>> so if i wanted to do what you are doing and simply go and find those websites nothing you have said has come from your own oppinion you simply stated website quote after website quote so in all honesty this debate seems pointless to me.

+++ I've stated my opinion and used sources to back up my opinion. I have debated and presented a lot of points. Of which, many, you have yet to rebut.

ALL OF THE FOLLOWING POINTS HAVE YET TO BE REBUTTED. IT IS UNFAIR FOR YOU TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THESE POINTS NOW WITHOUT GIVING ME A CHANCE TO DISAGREE AND REBUT THOSE ARGUMENTS. I WIN THIS DEBATE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE YET TO RESPOND TO THESE FOLLOWING POINTS AND I WILL NEVER GET A CHANCE TO DEBATE YOU ON THEM:

*** If soft drugs were legal, minors would be virtually incapable of getting them, because that would be the law.

*** It is an American person's decision if they choose to use hard drugs. Besides, as I have proven, soft drug legalisation, lowers the usage prevalence. In Amsterdam, as I stated, in round 1, soft drugs were halved in utilization. Also, hard drug usage is significantly more than halved. The 'gateway drug' argument is flawed.

[US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109] [www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]

*** Their incarceration, in the Netherlands, rate is 7 times lower, after legalising soft drugs! I've used two sources. You just said "nuh uh."

[Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3]
[www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm]

*** The War on Drugs does not even work. If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't.
[Arizona Libertarian Party]

*** The War on Drugs costs billions (not trillions as I mistyped earlier) of dollars.
[National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001.]
[http:// www. drugsense. org/ wodclock. htm]

*** The War on Drugs makes it very difficult to win the war on terror, because they are both so costly and the War on Drugs uses national intelligence resources.
[Commonsense.org = Can't Win War on Terror Fighting a War on Drugs]

*** We spend 150 million more Euros than the Netherlands on crime annually.
[van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control"]

*** They're homicide rate is 5 times lower in the Netherlands.
[Barclay, Gordon, Cynthia Tavares, Sally Kenny, Arsalaan Siddique & Emma Wilby, "International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2001,"]
ajborn2act10

Con

ajborn2act10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
@ I was not even talking to you, Duco. I was talking to abjorn.

That's why I asked for clarification, I was unsure.
Posted by ajborn2act10 8 years ago
ajborn2act10
Well thank you for pointing that out however i do not see the point in this debate once again sorry for wasting your time
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
I was not even talking to you, Duco. I was talking to abjorn.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
I am part of the NFL too and there are many types of debating, sweetheart.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
@
Too many people take the easy way out and never find a philosophy they agree with. I happen to agree with the Libertarian philosophy and think you would to if you saw all the facts. You really do not understand the philosophy of Libertarianism and it is annoying that you act like you do. And you have prescribed to Democracts, as I have prescribed to Libertarianism, even though I disagree with a few points.

Who are you talking to here?
Posted by ajborn2act10 8 years ago
ajborn2act10
Okay i was never trying to say i agreed with the Libertarian point of view. Nor did i try to say that I think that i completely understand the Libertarian view.I admit that i do not understand it, where you saw that i say i completely understand the libertarian view I do not know. You are correct i did register on this site as democratic although in many cases i am much more republican in general though i agree with the democratic prospective. I was simply trying to state that too many people use a stereotype they mostly fit into a put them self in it which i do not ever want to do... I should not have taken this debate with you and i apologize however, i am going to wait for the time to run out and forfeit. This site is not what i thought it was. I am part of the NFL which in case you weren't aware is a national group of highschool students who compete at debate tournaments between their schools, I thought this site would be a lot like that but this debate has proven it is nothing like it. I am sorry to waste your time
Posted by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
Too many people take the easy way out and never find a philosophy they agree with. I happen to agree with the Libertarian philosophy and think you would to if you saw all the facts. You really do not understand the philosophy of Libertarianism and it is annoying that you act like you do. And you have prescribed to Democracts, as I have prescribed to Libertarianism, even though I disagree with a few points.
Posted by ajborn2act10 9 years ago
ajborn2act10
I totally agree with leethal too many people take the easy way out and just pick a group they mostly agree with instead of using their own brain.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I don't think there's anything wrong with you not being a Libertarian, however how can supporting Obama's anti-capitalist health care policy following the "Libertarian" policy? Libertarians are for SMALL government, not subsidies. You can't sit and say you believe in the philosophy, but then you don't in the same breath. "Just a little" welfare is clearly against Libertarian philosophy.
Posted by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
I actually support legalisation of all drugs, but its an easier debate to win with only soft drugs, because I can use the Amsterdam model. However, I support Barack Obama, his health care plan, not counting juveniles as adults in court, and small amounts of welfare. I'm still a Libertarian, because I believe in the philosophy. Gah!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Bravo453 8 years ago
Bravo453
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Somnambulist 8 years ago
Somnambulist
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
libertarianajborn2act10Tied
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