The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
fire_wings
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The United States should legalize all drugs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/25/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,758 times Debate No: 83055
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)

 

tejretics

Pro

Full Resolution: The United States should legalize all drugs for recreational use.

This is for the Winter Tournament. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. "Recreational use" is "any non-medical use."
fire_wings

Con

I accept this debate. Good luck for the Winter Tournament. I thank Tejretics for being my opponent and ThePhropett for being the moderator.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

I had a great time today. I went to the Phoenix Mall for some outstanding iced tea, with a few ordinary glazed donuts to go with them. We then left to the Starmark Bookstore to thoroughly enjoy ourselves engrossed in reading -- I finished Grisham's "The Firm," and went on to read "Three" by Krishna Udayasankar, about the origins of Singapore. Why did I even come to the mall? Because I want to increase my own enjoyment. I love reading, I love iced tea (though donuts aren't really my favorite). But imagine if the government just became a totalitarian authority that crushed and destroyed all our choices. Katniss Everdeen, in the "Hunger Games," tries to oppose dictatorship for infringing on a person's choices. That's what we all want, isn't it? Get to have our fulfilled, and to act based on our choices. It's our choices that fulfill our lives. And as long as our choices don't affect anyone else, it's nobody's right to crush it.

"An unjust law is no law at all." Because I agree with Saint Augustine, I strongly affirm the resolution.

Burdens:

The resolution is a normative one. It isn’t an “is,” it is a “should.” There’s nothing to prove in this debate -- only a burden of persuasion, of persuading the judge to take a side. As such, there’s no point in the burdens of persuasion shifted towards one side. I’m arguing against the status quo, so I have to justify my proposal; Con argues for the status quo or a counterplan, so they have to justify their proposal. Thus, the burdens are split evenly between both sides.

--

My primary contention in this debate regards the idea of liberty to act based on our choices, as long as there's no harm to anyone else. That's why the government exists -- to enforce the law, a set of rules that ensure liberty. There's no reason for the law to exist except to maximize benefit and to minimize harm. Government policy is decided on the basis of utilitarianism, and the sole justification for government is to allow people to gain pleasure if there's no suffering. The idea is best articulated by John Stuart Mill's “harm principle,” which rests on a distinction between “self-regarding acts” and “other regarding acts.” It holds that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” A self-regarding act has no effect on an other -- only on the actor -- therefore ought not to be prevented by the government. The government’s regulation applies only to other-regarding acts.

There are two reasons to support the harm principle. First, government policy is inherently utilitarian. A government’s policy seeks to maximize positive mental states and minimize negative ones, represented in utilitarianism. The harm principle is utilitarian in nature: it seeks to maximize positive mental states (of the actor) and minimize negative ones (of the others). That’s why governments should base their policy on the harm principle. The second -- and more important -- reason to support the harm principle is that the harm principle gives the government its legitimacy. The government can’t be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy. If a government doesn’t follow the harm principle -- and exists for some other purpose -- it lacks any legitimacy; therefore, the alternative is absolute liberty and anarchy.

Either way, drugs can’t be illegal. They harm nobody except the user of the drug. The user of the drug takes immense pleasure in their usage, and harms no one in the process. To win this debate, Con has to show me how the drug would harm *others,* rather than the users of the drugs. If Con fails to do that, I win because of the harm principle and government legitimacy.

Thus, any law that makes the usage of drugs that don’t harm others is fundamentally unjust. Justice is giving each their due, and a just government ought to make utilitarian decisions. Since drugs being illegal is fundamentally non-utilitarian, and against the harm principle, it is unjust. An unjust law is no law at all. Vote Pro because of that.

There are also benefits to drug legalization, and some harms to the status quo. I’m going to discuss those to uphold the utilitarian framework I’ve been upholding from the first contention. First, let’s see the harms to the status quo:

(1) In the status quo, street drugs are easily available to children and other people physically unfit to consume drugs. Government regulation will prevent this, and legalization will ensure that children don’t gain access to such drugs.

(2) Drugs help the formation of criminal networks. Criminal organizations such as the Taliban gain much of their profit from trading in illicit drugs. The Taliban is a terrorist organization, which has caused multiple deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and various other terrorist organizations form networks via trading in illicit drugs. Legalization of drugs will cause United States agribusiness to compete against the Taliban and other such organizations, and people are bound to buy from legal businesses, rather than illegal ones.

(3) There would be little increase in the actual use of drugs if they’re legalized. I am not denying that there *will* be a change in the usage of drugs -- only that such a change will be extremely small. “The drug laws are ineffective. The deterrent effect, which was at best only partial in the past, is swiftly breaking down and will probably prove even less effective in the future. Rehabilitation has always been a complete failure—the prison system has served to perpetuate drug use, not to cure the users. Public safety has actually suffered because of the drug laws.” [1] If there’s no effect to drug laws, there is no point in their existence. Irrational laws are usually rejected. Since changing the status quo would allow people to have liberty, and uphold government legitimacy, this is the strongest reason to legalize drugs. [Note: I understand that this is not an offensive argument, but it still provides a reason to vote Pro based on the other arguments.]

Drug legalization also has multiple actual benefits. These are economic, social, and also affect saving lives, which can factor into the utilitarian analysis. Some of the benefits are listed below.

(1) Legalizing drugs would save innocent lives. In the Mexican Drug War, as a result of US intervention, around 1,000 children, 58 reporters, and 511 American civilians have been killed (US numbers only; information from Wikipedia, sourced from Fox News and Spanish journals). If the United States stops intervention in the Mexican Drug War, and pressures Mexico to legalize drugs as well, around 20,000 lives can be saved annually. Legalizing drugs will also stop the existence of American cartels, and US agribusiness can compete against Mexican drug cartels, thus significantly reducing the latter’s profits, and perhaps ending the Mexican Drug War.

(2) Drug legalization would present multiple economic benefits. According to a study by the Cato Institute, drug legalization would reduce government expenditure by $41.3 billion. If drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. [2] The government needs the money -- the national debt stands at 75% of total GDP. Drug legalization would lessen this impact significantly.

(3) Legalizing drugs would also involve releasing all those imprisoned for non-violent, personal drug use, thus significantly reducing prison costs.

(4) There’s huge amounts of crime that comes with illicit drugs. Cartels, mafia, etc. have formed to trade illicit drugs, and that’s evolved into immense amounts of crime. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of crime in the United States. That’s an indisputable fact. Legalizing drugs would reduce crime, reduce illegal gun proliferation, and push cartels out of the market. Prohibition keeps the drug trade in the black market. Legalizing it would take it out, thus reducing crime.

(5) Some studies suggest that people would use drugs *less* if legalized -- as noted in one study by the Cato Institute. [3] It’s possible, so drug legalization could even reduce usage of drugs, thus turning any health arguments, and perhaps all of Con’s offense.

There are utilitarian benefits to legalizing drugs. Paternalism and lack of respect for the harm principle, as well as non-utilitarian decisions, are unjust. An unjust law is no law at all. For these reasons, vote Pro.

Sources:

1. http://www.psychedelic-library.org...

2. http://www.cato.org...

3. http://www.cato.org...
fire_wings

Con

I thank my opponent for making his argument.

Framework

Okay, now it comes to the framework, but I have a debate with Tejretics again! (Which is awful... )

Okay, now let's go to the actual debate. The Winter Tournament is on! Our debate topic is that the US should legalize all drugs for extra recreational use. Before arguing about recreational use, I will first go onto why drugs are bad, and we should not legalize them, then talk about recreational use. Because BoP is on Pro, (he has to tell why we need to legalize all drugs.)

Just to say, the resolution is about legalizing all drugs, and not just most drugs, all drugs and also for non-medical use. Legalizing all drugs is a very big disadvantage for Pro, because he has to say to legalize all kinds of drugs, not just few. If I say that we should ban drugs, make a good reason, and make the opponent not fill the BoP of the debate, then I win the debate. However, if my opponent fills the BoP, he wins the debate. Let the first round of the Winter's Tournament begin! I thank my opponent Tejretics and also the moderator of the winter's tournament, which is ThePhropett. I thank my opponent, and lets have a good debate.

Just one more thing I want to say. I want some new arguments in the final round. That is it. Let's have a good debate.

Preface

Okay, this will be very short, but is the preface of this debate. This debate is from the first round of the winter tournament which is on the forum posts.

And, this is my second debate with Tejretics as many might know. Tejretics is a good debater. I will show you to our first debate, which needs some votes (only one.)

http://www.debate.org...

This debate needs some votes, however not even a day left, then Post Voting Debate. Anyways, good luck to my opponent Tejretics for my first debate, this debate for the Winter's Tournament, and also for our future debates, if we ever have some. Thank you. Let's begin!

Arguments

I will first go onto my arguments, then I will go to my rebuttals of Pro's arguments.

1. Secondhand impact.

First of all, I will go in what are drugs.

What are drugs?

Okay, in this debate, What are the drugs we are referring to? We are referring to all kinds of drugs, as it says in the resolution which titles, "The United States will legalize all drugs. However what drugs are we referring to in this debate?

Some drugs we might be referring to: Smoking, because nicotine is an addictive drug, that is in smoking. Marijuana, which is another type of drug. There is Cocaine, which is another type of drug.

Here are just some sources of what are some drugs we are referring to in this debate.

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

Okay, now I will go into my actual arguments, which is the secondhand impact.

Okay, I will first give an example of one drug. The drug is nicotine, and this is from smoking. Okay, first of all, I will tell you why niciotine causes secondhand effects. Okay, first of all, it is well-known that smoking causes secondhand impacts. People breathe in smoking, and then the bad air will go in human's bodies. Nicotine will make smoking addictive, so then there will be more secondhand impacts.

Okay, no it comes to my second reason for secondhand impacts. This shows that secondhand impacts are bad. 5.6 children in the US, died because of secondhand smoke, as related to the status quo. This is a lot of people, and is only children! That means, probably there will be a lot more secondhand smoke dead people who are adults. This rebuts Pro's liberty argument which was that the liberty on choices, as long as their are no people else. My argument rebuts Pro's argument which was about the liberty act of not harming anyone else. I rebut this by showing that there is secondhand impacts from smoking, and many other drugs. Marijuana is also another drug, and this is like smoking, so then, there will be a lot of secondhand impacts from this too. That all means these innocent people who don't use drugs, they are dying because of these drugs.

Pro will probably rebut that people don't get secondhand impact by some drugs. However the resolution says all drugs, and smoking's nicotine is also a drug. As I explained, there is lot's of bad pollution in smoking, which secondhand people will breathe into, making them harmed.

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

Okay, now it will come to my second argument, which is about cost.

2. Economy Fails

This argument will be very short, because there is not really lots to explain. My second argument is about the economic fails.

Okay, the economic failure is very huge if we legalize all drugs. Because of the many deaths from drugs, there is a lot of money wasted from the economy, because of less humans. The economy fails if we legalize drugs, so that means that we should ban drugs because the economy will fail pretty badly of we legalize drugs, because of the amount of people get less, need to pay healthcare bills. The economy fails, the country gets worse, and the government will have less money when you legalize drugs. There is one more reason why the economy fails. There will be less people because more dead by the health issues of drugs.

3. Health Issues

Okay, this is my last argument, which is about health issues.

Okay, I will go into few examples of what gets bad for your health.

1. Lung Cancer

This is probably the most important one for health issues. Your lungs seriously get harmed by drugs. All the bad chemicals and the things in drugs make your lungs bad. Smoking makes your lungs bad, as many of you know that the air when you smoke is all pollution, and you basically really breathe in a lot of pollution, making your lungs bad. Smoking is a drug, and so is marijuana. They both harm your lungs. Your lungs do a important job for you. Your lungs make you breathe. However, if you use drugs or smoke, use marijuana, you will have lung cancer.

What is lung cancer anyways? Lung Cancer is when your lungs are really in bad condition, and you can't breathe. How much this was in smoking? Between 2005-2010, there was 130659 amount of people dead by lung cancer, only smokers. By second-hand impact, however, there was 7330 people who had lung cancer in one year by secondhand impact by smoking. This is a lot of people who died by lung cancer. Your lung makes you breathe, and drugs cause your lungs to be worse, giving no good things to legalize drugs.

Is there just one drug? No! That means that there is way more people who died from lung cancer by other drugs. There is marijuana, and many other drugs in the whole world, not just one drug. This means that there will be a lot more drugs where you get lung cancer, and then you will have bad health, die from can't breathe.

2. Rotten Teeth

My next reason is that you can have rotten teeth. Your teeth is very important for when you eat. You swallow some food, then all your rotten teeth, some bad things will go in your stomach, making your stomach worse. Also, your teeth will become bad, your teeth might fall out, and you can't eat. Having your teeth being rotten is very bad. That is why you go to the dentist. However, the dentist costs a lot of money, and your teeth will hurt. This means that you should not use drugs or legalize them.

This shows you that there is bad effects by drugs. There are many more bad things like, nightmares, heart attacks, Insomnia. There is a lot of bad issues if you legalize or use drugs by health, meaning that you should not legalize these drugs for health reasons.

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...


Rebuttals

Because I finished my arguments, I will go on my opponent's case. First of all it is divided in few parts. 1. Liberty, Pro's strongest impact. 2. Legalization will make sure children won't gain access to drugs. 3. Criminal Networks. 4. Little Increase in the actual use of drugs. 5. Save innocent lives. 6. Economic Benefits. 7. Releasing all those personal drug use. 8. huge amounts of crime that comes with illicit drugs. 9. People will use drugs less if legalized.

Because of the lack of characters in this round, I can't go into all of Pro's arguments. I will just go into Pro's first two arguments, and put 7 more arguments rebutted in the next round. Know that I am not dropping those arguments, I will rebut them later. Pro cannot say and penalize me by saying that I dropped his arguments, I did not drop his arguments, just listing them later.

Rebuttal 1: Liberty

Okay, Pro's first argument is about the Liberty in drug legalization. He states that we can have the right to choice unless it does not harm others. However, I had already rebutted Pro's argument by saying that Secondhand impact will happen if we legalize drugs, so just look at my first argument. Also, not all people wanted to choose to use drugs. Many drugs are addictive, such as nicotine. It is not the liberty that makes sometimes the people using drugs, it is that because of the addictiveness. Drugs harm others by secondhand impact, meaning we should not have the right of choice because it harms others.

Rebuttal 2: Legalizing drugs won't make children into drugs

Pro does not have any evidence from his sources that children cannot go in drugs. However there is a quick rebuttal from this argument. Legalizing drugs makes drugs easy to buy with no penalty, and no bad things. It is much easier to buy or take access to drugs because it is not illegal. This means that more people can make or go into drugs because it is legalized. This means that more children can go into drugs because legalized.

Conclusion

Because of the lack of characters, which is not even 100 characters left, I could not rebut all of Pro's arguments. I will rebut them next round. My main arguments are Secondhand impact, Economy Fails, and also Health Issues. We hate bad things for innocent people that involves deaths. Then make drugs illegal. Vote for Con.

Thank you. Rebuttal is the next round. Good luck!



Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

I accept Con's observation -- if he can show that even one drug should not be legal, Con wins. But new arguments in the final round are not allowed. The rules aren't contestable. New arguments in the final round are abusive. If Con makes new arguments in the final round, vote Pro on abuse.

All of Con's arguments -- including secondhand impact -- fail for one reason: legalizing drugs won't cause more harm. The status quo and drug prohibition are ineffective. As I proved last round, the prohibition doesn't deter people from the usage of drugs at all. The deterrent effect is swiftly breaking down. In fact, drug prohibition causes *easier* access to drugs, because under my plan, there will be strict restrictions on the sale of drugs -- e.g. sell drugs to only those with an identity confirmation that proves they are over 21 in age, etc. In the status quo, drug cartels (which would collapse due to competition by legal drug trade under my plan) sell drugs to everyone, including children. That's why, as the Cato Institute confirms, drug use would decrease under legalization. [Source 3, Rd. 2.] In my argument, I said that the status quo has some effect on drugs -- I'm kicking that concession. Ignore what I said regarding that. Drug prohibition doesn't reduce use of drugs. Vote Pro right there. Con's defense of the status quo doesn't solve any of the harms he lists.

As evidenced by his rebuttal of the harm principle, Con concedes the harm principle, and accepts that his burden is to demonstrate that drugs harm others, and that usage of drugs is an other-regarding act rather than a self-regarding act. If I can refute all of Con's offense regarding drugs harming people who don't use drugs, then vote Pro by default on the harm principle. The only means by which Con tries to refute the harm principle is by secondhand impacts and economic harms -- if I refute both, then vote Pro.

Moving onto Con's arguments:

First, secondhand impact There's a single solution to all of the offense Con lists. My plan involves a ban on public usage of drugs. Prohibit drugs in public places. Usage of drugs in front of other people, thus harming them, is responsible for the secondhand impact caused by drugs. Thus, I propose that "drug zones" be built, specific areas where people can use drugs, similar to "smoking zones" in Kenya. This completely stops the secondhand impact. Furthermore, as seen by my first observation, more drugs are used in the status quo than they would be used if drugs are legalized. This means there's more secondhand impact in the status quo than there would be under my plan. Link turn this argument. Since drugs are used without restrictions in public under the status quo, and my plan solves such restrictions, secondhand impact is a reason to legalize drugs.

Con never establishes a clear link or impact as to how drugs would harm the economy, outside of lost productivity. I accept that deaths cause less productivity, but Con fails to show how it outweighs the massive economic benefits that come with drug legalization. The status quo causes a government expenditure of $41.6 billion annually, which is entirely removed by the plan. Furthermore, if drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. The economic harms argument is also turned because more drugs are used in the status quo than in the plan, meaning there's more lost productivity in the status quo than in the plan. This just adds to my economic benefits argument, and provides further reason to vote Pro. There's also the government expenditure in prison maintenance that is reduced, furthering the positive impact of drug legalization on the economy.

The health issues argument is defeated by the harm principle. Under the harm principle, the government should only legislate to prevent "other regarding" harms -- an action that harms someone outside of the actor. Regardless of the impact it has on the person, there's no reason to escape the harm principle and destroy rule utilitarianism, as well as the sole justification for the legitimacy of government. If the government legislates to prevent health harms to the person who chooses to use drugs, then the government isn't using utility to change policy, therefore lacks legitimacy. Further, the health issues argument is also turned by more drugs being used in the status quo than in the plan. So the lung cancer and rotten teeth arguments are irrelevant, and can be turned under Con's own paradigm.

The harm principle is virtually conceded. Con tries to say that there is an other-regarding harm to drugs, which has been refuted. Then, Con says it's the addictiveness of drugs -- and not the person's choice -- that compels him to use them. First, this is false. The person *chooses* to foster that addiction by buying new drugs. The addiction merely pushes him to choosing. Second, this is irrelevant. It's still a self-regarding harm -- the person's harming himself, and he isn't harming anyone else. The person knows that he'll never stop when he first has drugs, and that's a choice that changes his life. The government shouldn't prevent the person from taking that first, dangerous step, because then it becomes a totalitarian authority that violates the harm principle.

Under my plan, only people with a clear identification that proves that they're over 21 can have drugs. But in the status quo, there's no such need for identification -- the prohibition is ineffective, and drug cartels have their way, and they don't have regulations. This means street drugs are easily available to children, since there's no need for identification. Under my plan, drug cartels will be competed out of the market, and drugs will no longer be in the black market, thus reducing exposure of drugs to those under 21.

Con drops every other argument of mine. Vote Pro because the status quo results in more consumption of drugs, which internal link turns every single argument of Con's. Also vote Pro because the harm principle is the only force that decides government legitimacy, so government action should only be based on other-regarding harms. The utilitarian benefits of the plan and harms of the status quo -- e.g. the number of lives lost in the Drug War -- provide greater reason to vote Pro.

For all these reasons, vote Pro.
fire_wings

Con

Sorry for not posting my rebuttals. I will post them now.

Framework

Okay, I will agree to Pro that we should not put new arguments in the last round. If anyone posts new arguments in the last round, the other opponent gets the forfeited points automatically, even though they have weaker arguments. Next of all, Pro says I concede on many of his arguments. However, it is just that I did not any space to rebut Pro's arguments, so I will do that. Many of Pro's arguments fall for few reasons, and I will conclude that in the end of my rebuttals, and then start my defense. As I just made arguments about not legalizing smoking, this round I may (If I have characters) argue that drugs should not be legalized because of recreational use. If I see one drug needs to be banned, I win, because the resolution says that all drugs should be legalized.

Rebuttals

1. Harm Principle

I just knew that Pro had this argument, so I will rebut his argument now.

This argument is also kinda rebutted in Liberty, but Pro states that the harm principle is that you have the right to have choice unless it does not hurt anyone. However, this is false. Drugs do harm other people by secondhand impact. This means that there is no reason to have the liberty of our choices for drugs, because of secondhand impact from others who do not smoke.

Pro does this by two reasons which are that the government needs to citizens happy, however this does not be accurate. Only some people be happy by drugs, when some don't and get secondhand impact. Therefore we should have liberty for the people who do not use drugs also, not only the people who use drugs. The government's job is to make the citizens happy, but because of drug legalization, people are not happy, and the government is failing their job.

2. Criminal Networks

There is no true harm for criminal networks, it is just that the Taliban will be bound to buy legal business. This completely does not harm to the US, that Taliban people buy legal businesses. Why can't they buy illegal ones just that drugs are illegal? There is smoking also. My point is that we can legalize few drugs, like things that won't harm the criminal networks, just that we won't illegalize all. Thus, this argument is useless if few drugs are legalized, but all are not.

3. Little increase of drug use

Pro says that drugs will that there will be an little of an increase of people who use drugs. However this is false very reasonably. First of all, we are legalising drugs, meaning that there is no bad thing if we buy drugs, because there is no bad harm like having a penalty. There will become a huge use of drugs, because it is legalised.

4. Saves innocent lives

Pro states that legalizing drugs will save lives because of the Mexican Drug War. However, this argument does not do about we need to legalize all drugs. Not all drugs will end the Mexican Drug War, and a lot of drugs are useless. There are a lot of different kinds of drugs, and one can stand out.

There is also another bad thing for Pro that finishes this argument. It is that drugs do not save people's lives. According to my secondhand impact argument, it states that people die because of the environment drugs make around us. This kills the population of people who are innocent. Thus, drugs do not save innocent lives, they destroy them.

5. Economic Benefits

This is the total opposite of my second argument in round 2. My argument clearly states that the economy fails if we have drugs because there will be less people from more dead, and less people will be there, which means that there will be a worse of an economy.

6. Crime

Because the 3rd one that Pro states is so short, and not an argument, I won't rebut it. It is just about prison costs will go down. There is no bad thing for this that will be made to legalize all drugs. This is not really a bad thing. Next is Crime. Pro says that legalizing drugs will reduce crime.

What is crime?

Crime: An action that is evil or wrong.

Okay, because of the cartels and the black market, that doesn't mean it reduces actions that are wrong.

7. Use drugs less if legalized

Okay, this argument has to be wrong. As what it said in my 3rd rebuttal, Pro states that there will be a little increase of drug use. However, this argument says that they will use drugs less if legalized, making one of these arguments wrong.


This is the end of my rebuttals. I will go on my defense, arguments, and end the round.

Defense

1. Secondhand impact

Okay, this is my first argument. Pro said that he has a "solution" and a counterplan to rebut this, and the plan was that we should make drug zones. There is a easy way to rebut this. It is that some drugs like niciotine can move around. They go into different apartments, and also, do you expect that these drugs will stay in one place? If there are zones which Pro states, if someone goes out, the air goes out. Secondhand smoke can travel. This means that Pro's plan is flawed, and not effective in any sort of way.

2. Economy

Okay, Drugs cost 180$ a year because of death. Even though drug ban will give more money to the economy, there will be more deaths because of the drugs that are not beneficial to your health will kill people. This has a stronger impact and more of a economy failure if we have drugs then not having drugs.

3. Health

Okay, Pro says that he had rebutted this by the harm principle, but he clearly failed to rebut this argument properly. I rebutted the Harm Principle saying that the people get harmed by secondhand impact. His argument gets clearly addressed in my argument. Pro says they are irrelevant. How are they irrelevant? I clearly stated all the bad things and the effects from drugs, and said that is turned and rebuts or makes my side bad. The rebuttal is completely wrong. I am stating that if we legalize drugs, people's health will be bad.

Pro failed to successfully rebut my argument about secondhand impact and also the health argument.

Arguments

1. There is medical use for drugs

There is a shocking news. The news is that drugs can be used for medical use. That means that drugs can be legalized, but for medical use. That is the only option that drugs should be legalized. Pro will say that I said we should legalize drugs, and I conceded the debate, however I didn't. The resolution is about legalizing drugs for non-medical use, however the only good thing about drugs is their medical use, but still, it does not advantage for Pro.

Conclusion

Okay, here comes to my conclusion. I believe that drugs should not be legalized or legalized for medical use because of 4 reasons, 3 are in round 2, one in this round. Pro failed to rebut two of my arguments properly, when I rebutted all of Pro's arguments. Vote Con on secondhand impact.


Thank you. Vote for Con.

Sources

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...

http://tinyurl.com...


Debate Round No. 3
tejretics

Pro

Con completely misinterprets and straw-mans almost all my arguments -- to the point of hilarity. For instance, a "drug zone" isn't a place where the "drug will stay," it's a place where people can use drugs. Drug usage in public would be banned. I already established that. There are multiple other means by which Con straw-mans my arguments, and I'll address them here.

Next, judges shouldn't simply vote down the side that brings new arguments. There's no rule that says a rule violation is a loss -- judges should just consider the abuse among other arguments, and weigh it all; they shouldn't consider new arguments. Last round, I said "vote Pro on abuse." I meant, vote Pro on abuse in addition to others. Perhaps it was that statement that led to Con's misinterpretation.

Onto the arguments:

First, drug usage will decrease if legalized. I already said I kicked the concession I made that there'll be little increase -- "kicking" it means that isn't relevant. I changed my stance last round. Debate theory dictates that I'm allowed to change my stance. The kick is just missed by my opponent. Con drops everything else, including all the evidence I presented in favor of the argument that drug usage will decrease under drug prohibition. This acts as an internal link turn to the whole negative case. Vote Pro right there. Con's case is false because all of Con's harms harm himself. The point 3, "little increase of drug use," was never mentioned by me in Rd. 3 -- I mentioned it in Rd. 2, and in Rd. 3, I said even a little increase wouldn't exist. I kicked that before Con even addressed it. Con's logic is that if we legalize drugs, there's no penalty to deter people. But my source says deterrence is *not* at work. Quoting my source, "The drug laws are ineffective. The deterrent effect, which was at best only partial in the past, is swiftly breaking down and will probably prove even less effective in the future. Rehabilitation has always been a complete failure -- the prison system has served to perpetuate drug use, not to cure the users. Public safety has actually suffered because of the drug laws." [Source 1, Rd. 2] For that reason alone, you can vote Pro.

Second, criminal networks. I have no idea what Con is saying here. The Taliban doesn't *buy* drugs, it sells them illegally. It only sells drugs because there's no legal competition for drugs. Drugs are responsible for an immense amount of the Taliban's profit. [4] If drugs are legalized, United States' legal drug trades will compete with the Taliban, and since people are more likely to buy from legal sources, the Taliban will lose profits. The Taliban doesn't buy drugs, it sells them, and it'll stop selling them if the US legalizes drugs.

Third, innocent lives. Drugs won't stop the Mexican Drug War -- the *legalization* of drugs will. Drugs don't save people's lives, and I never claimed they do. I'm not saying the drugs themselves are beneficial, I'm saying the legalization of drugs is beneficial. I clearly showed how if the US legalizes drugs, it won't participate in the war, and US-based cartels will stop. Pressure on Mexico might make Mexico legalize drugs, and the cartels will be out of business, so the war will stop if we legalize drugs. This has nothing to do with the drugs, so much as their legalization. This is just a huge red herring.

Fourth, crime. A "crime" isn't an action that's "evil or wrong," it's an action that is in violation of the criminal code. Drug cartels are responsible for huge amounts of crime in the United States. Legalizing drugs means drug cartels stop, and so they stop killing people and stop criminal activities unrelated to drugs.

Fifth, the economy. I showed that the status quo causes a government expenditure of $41.6 billion annually, which is entirely removed by the plan. Furthermore, if drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. I also showed that prison costs would reduce significantly. Pro says drugs cost $180 a year -- obviously this is a wrong number, because if it's right, it's easily outweighed by my argument. How does $180 have a stronger impact than over $88 billion? Don't allow Con to change the number, because then I won't be able to address the argument.

Furthermore, "medical use for drugs" is a defense, and isn't relevant to the resolution.

--

Secondhand impact is the means by which Con defends health and the harm principle. Let me get on with it. First, Con's representation of my counterplan is a straw man. My plan involves a ban on public usage of drugs, and usage of "drug zones" where drugs can be used. Drug zones are *closed* places where people can use drugs, so that it doesn't harm anyone else, just like Kenya does with cigarette smoking. A public drug ban will solve this. Furthermore, the fact that drugs are used more under prohibition turns this. Because of this, I win health and the harm principle.

Con drops street drugs and children. Con concedes the framework behind the harm principle, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proving that drugs are an "other regarding" act. Vote Pro because the status quo results in more consumption of drugs, which internal link turns every single argument of Con's. Also vote Pro because the harm principle is the only force that decides government legitimacy, so government action should only be based on other-regarding harms. The utilitarian benefits of drug legalization and harms to the status quo outweigh all of Pro's offense (esp. lives lost; lives lost easily outweighs any of Con's offense, because of utilitarian calculations).

Essentially, the government should only legislate based on "other regarding" harms, drugs don't pose other regarding harms under the plan, and my offense relating to lives lost, crime, and criminal networks causes such huge damage that it outweighs all of Con's offense.

For all the above reasons, vote Pro.


Sources:

4. http://www.cfr.org...
fire_wings

Con

Wow... My argument got deleted. Guess I had to start over again.

Framework

Sorry if my case is very brief, because my case got deleted, and I do not have much time. This is the last round of the Winter's Tournament, Round 1, and I thank him for the debate. BOP is shared. Pro says vote him for abuse, when I did not post new arguments in the final round. I will talk about the things Pro missed, misunderstanding, as what arguments he had dropped. Pro also states that recreational use for drugs is not part of the resolution, when the resolution clearly says that The United States should legalize drugs for non-medical use.

Defense

Okay, I will first go onto my defense for my arguments. This is about Pro's round 4.

1. Pro said that he kicked out the argument that I responded. He never argued about which one the real case is about, meaning that there is no reason the rebut that case. My logic is that with legalizing there is no reason to be in trouble, because there is no rule that you are banned. That means that there will be an increase of drug use, which is common logic that everyone knows. Pro also didn't say about kicking out that argument, so he is making new arguments or deleting arguments now.

2. I know that it sells drugs. My defense was here. "There is no true harm for criminal networks, it is just that the Taliban will be bound to buy legal business. This completely does not harm to the US, that Taliban people buy legal businesses. Why can't they buy illegal ones just that drugs are illegal? There is smoking also. My point is that we can legalize few drugs, like things that won't harm the criminal networks, just that we won't illegalize all. Thus, this argument is useless if few drugs are legalized, but all are not." Even though they sell drugs, there is no real impact for the US. That is my rebuttal that I stated, there is no huge impact.

3. Saving innocent lives. Pro says that he never said it saves people's lives. But he did. He states that, "Legalizing drugs would save innocent lives. In the Mexican Drug War, as a result of US intervention, around 1,000 children, 58 reporters, and 511 American civilians have been killed (US numbers only; information from Wikipedia, sourced from Fox News and Spanish journals). If the United States stops intervention in the Mexican Drug War, and pressures Mexico to legalize drugs as well, around 20,000 lives can be saved annually. Legalizing drugs will also stop the existence of American cartels, and US agribusiness can compete against Mexican drug cartels, thus significantly reducing the latter’s profits, and perhaps ending the Mexican Drug War." He says it saves people's lives, which Pro is making up.

4. Crime

Okay, Pro says that crime is not an action that is evil or wrong. However, in Merriam Webster, it clearly says that. Merriam Webster is a reliable sources with reliable defintions. Pro says that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. There is no evidence, and no sources from Pro to prove that.

5. This is the economy. As I said, I rebutted this argument saying that people dying makes the economy fail. There si no reason to add on.

6. As I said in my framework, medical use is a very important part of the resoltuion, and Pro did not saying anything about this, giving me the win.

7. Drug Zones

Drug Zones are places where people can use drugs. Pro does not explain or have prove that this is effective. My rebuttal stated that air moves. It can go to the places where citizens live. People might no solve this, and this will be a hard problem to the government.

8. I did not concede both arguments. I will post them here.

Children one

This one is from round 2

"Pro does not have any evidence from his sources that children cannot go in drugs. However there is a quick rebuttal from this argument. Legalizing drugs makes drugs easy to buy with no penalty, and no bad things. It is much easier to buy or take access to drugs because it is not illegal. This means that more people can make or go into drugs because it is legalized. This means that more children can go into drugs because legalized."

From round 2, and 3

Okay, Pro's first argument is about the Liberty in drug legalization. He states that we can have the right to choice unless it does not harm others. However, I had already rebutted Pro's argument by saying that Secondhand impact will happen if we legalize drugs, so just look at my first argument. Also, not all people wanted to choose to use drugs. Many drugs are addictive, such as nicotine. It is not the liberty that makes sometimes the people using drugs, it is that because of the addictiveness. Drugs harm others by secondhand impact, meaning we should not have the right of choice because it harms others.

I just knew that Pro had this argument, so I will rebut his argument now.

" This argument is also kinda rebutted in Liberty, but Pro states that the harm principle is that you have the right to have choice unless it does not hurt anyone. However, this is false. Drugs do harm other people by secondhand impact. This means that there is no reason to have the liberty of our choices for drugs, because of secondhand impact from others who do not smoke.

Pro does this by two reasons which are that the government needs to citizens happy, however this does not be accurate. Only some people be happy by drugs, when some don't and get secondhand impact. Therefore we should have liberty for the people who do not use drugs also, not only the people who use drugs. The government's job is to make the citizens happy, but because of drug legalization, people are not happy, and the government is failing their job."

They are basically the same.

Because I did not drop 'any' of Pro's arguments, and Pro dropped 3 of mine, vote for Con.

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Thank you. The end of the debate. Voting starts!






Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 2 months ago
fire_wings
YYW's vote feedback is so helpful
Posted by tejretics 10 months ago
tejretics
@lonnie007

I mentioned a bit of what you're saying in the debate. Drugs are easily accessible via the black market currently, and drugs being in the black market increases criminal activity and poses a threat to the people. Legalizing drugs allows the legal market to compete the black market drugs out of business, thus reducing the threat posed, and creating stricter regulations in dealing of drugs (thus ensuring that children, etc don't get access to drugs).
Posted by lonnie007 10 months ago
lonnie007
I'm a retired Narcotics Det., and I've
seen plenty of blood shed in the mean streets all because of turf wars for drugs. The main reason for drive-by shootings is the want for turf, as well as the money. if you let drugs be used like alcohol it takes the money out of it. A lot of us drinks and we all know its bad for us but we do it anyway, it would be the same thing with drugs, if a person wants to end his or her life by smoking crack, it can't be stopped
Posted by tejretics 12 months ago
tejretics
Thanks, Midnight.

Whiteflame - It's up to you; thanks anyway! Feedback would be helpful, but it's your choice.
Posted by fire_wings 12 months ago
fire_wings
I prefer you to do it, but I don't mind.
Posted by fire_wings 12 months ago
fire_wings
@Whiteflame, it is your choice. You can if you really want to, but I don't mind.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
Well, I was going to vote, but I'm tired and really don't want to take the time to write out the RFD. Suffice it to say, tejeretics would have earned my vote. I can provide details tomorrow (after the voting period ends) if either of you really want them.
Posted by fire_wings 12 months ago
fire_wings
Thanks for the vote.
Posted by Midnight1131 12 months ago
Midnight1131
To conclude, Pro won all of his arguments, and was able to refute all of Con's. Therefore winning the debate. The key difference in this debate was in the details. Pro was able to specifically show which parts of their plan would help. Such as telling us how it would reduce crime, or benefits the economy. Con on the other hand didn't do as well in this area. They used very generalized arguments, and never backed them up. They also dropped key points that Pro made. When Pro said that gov't regulated drugs wouldn't be sold to anyone who couldn't show that they were 21 or older, Con ignored this and continued to say that it would be easier for children to have drugs because there would be no penalty. Con should've taken more care when responding to Pro's rebuttals, because they missed quite a few details that made the crux of Pro's arguments.

Congratulations to both sides, this was a good debate overall.
Posted by Midnight1131 12 months ago
Midnight1131
Health effects
Here Con makes the case that drug legalization has a bad effect on health. He gives two examples of lung cancers and rotten teeth.
For his rebuttal Pro restates that the government should only legislate to prevent harms to other people, not the drug user. And Pro's plan would ensure that no bystanders are harmed by the now legalized drugs.
Con defends this argument by restating his secondhand impact argument.

Since Pro won the secondhand impact, by showing that his plan was better in terms of reducing bystander impact, this argument goes to Pro. If there are no benefits to bystanders, it doesn't matter what happens to the users, because they are only effecting themselves.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 12 months ago
Midnight1131
tejreticsfire_wings
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS - If either side has any issues with this vote feel free to contact me.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
tejreticsfire_wings
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/78092/