The War On Drugs
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent must argue that the war on drugs is good.
Please, first round is acceptance.
Yes, thank you!
PSYCHOLOGY OF DRUG ADDICTION
Our original understanding of addiction came from an experiment where a rat was put in a cage with drugged water and one with clean water. The rats soon became addicted to the drugged water and overdosed themselves in almost every case. However, these rats were alone. In the 1970s, a professor named Bruce Alexander tried a new experiment. He still had the drugged and the regular water, except this time, the rats were in a cage with every pleasure possible, with other rats, and with toys. In those "rat parks", addiction practically disappeared.
THE VIETNAM EXAMPLE
In the Vietnam War, 20% of the soldiers used heroin. However, when they came back home, 95% of them did not use drugs. This stands in direct contradiction with the standard views on addiction.
THE WAR ISN'T WORKING
Since the war was declared, the rate of drug abuse has accelerated. Why? Because we are locking people in prison cells and fining people who are already lonely and poor and unemployed.
The problem is that people who are isolated and having a difficult life, who have resorted to drug use, are being jailed and fined instead of getting treatment and being integrated into society.
The war on drugs doesn't mean the banning of drugs altogether, it means the banning of harmful and addictive drugs. An addiction is a bad habit. If your'e body can't cope without the particular substance throughout a particular period, then that person has become addicted to it, will eventually be the cause of some health risk down the line.
And the most immoral and life threatening addiction (I believe) is drugs. Cocaine, Opium, Marijuana, Heroin and many others. THere many other drug addictions which involve drugs on the 'legal' side . Such as Vicodin, Asprins etc.
But what you say is right, the people who spend a lot of time home alone and who are unemployed are usually the one's who get addicted. Therefore we need to tackle this problem in another way, in an indirect way. We need to create more employment opportunites and other effects to oncrease employment rates. Perhaps that is the solution.
PugsRule11 forfeited this round.
I am sorry for the forfiet, as I was out for a few days sick. Please ignore the forfiet voters and Pro, and I will continue with my argument.
1. Not only is the war not working, it is making the problem worse. Our current policy of jailing and fining people who are already poor and isolated has created new problems. What we are doing has in part resulted in skyrocketing drug usage ratings. Fighting a useless war that takes billions of dollars away from anti-poverty programs whilst making the porblem it tries to solve worse does not make sense.
2. Drug usage does pose a health usage, and this is why it needs to be adressed. Having said this, our current policy is preventing addicts from being integrated into society.
3. While drug addiction is an immoral and life-threatening practice, it should be noted that many people who are isolated and many young people are doing drugs. Are we going to ruin the lives of people who are already living through horrible conditions and prevent them from ever advancing in society?
4. Also, I would like to point out that the skyrocketing prison population in the US is not in least part do to the war on drugs.
Not only is this a strain on our prison population, it has also hurt the addicts mental health at a time when our mental health system is substandard.
1. The policy of jailing and fining people who are already poor has not lead to skyrocketing of drug usage. It is the excessive amount of adult activities such as going to bars, clubs , and parties that have exposed people to the illegal use of drugs. Nobody is fighting the usage of a drug for medicinal purposes. But, it can be misused also. The same can be said on terrorism also. We are winning that war, so lets just stop, but we can't afford to. Because we are fighting this war, at least some teenagers refrain from using drugs. If we stop this too, the floodgates will open.
2. Will addicts be integrated into society? When they become better they will be, eventually, over time. They are not being integrated into the society because the common people do not know the mental situation the person is in. But when the person becomes better, the addiction will just be a black dot on his resume.
3. Again, let them get rehabilitated, then they will be received well in the society. But it is harder for them to get accepted. This is where family and friends come in, they have to help the addict to cope with his problem and abstain from using drugs again. Why should the normal public bother about drug addicts? They have their own problems to attend to. But as you said the lonely people are the ones who get addicted, and their friends too are normally addicts. Therefore they have made the arrest of addicts legal, so that they can go, for a period of time, without using drugs.
4. The prison population is going to be steadily increasing no matter what. Doesn't matter if you make arrests of drug addicts or don't. Crime rate has been on the rise.
If you let drug addicts walk around uncontrolled, then that will lead to major rise in the use of drugs. Which will lead to more crimes, and more prison population. No matter what prison population will continue to rise.
5. Drug addicts receive rays of hope from various places, it is their choice whether or not they accept it. As you said lonely people do not have any family, therefore the people trying to help have no right whatsoever to impose their will for them to stop using.
6. Stopping drug addiction is so much more harder as there are no replacements. One HAS to stop using. There are no other alternatives for them to use. The war on drugs is relatively young in nature. Therefore it is going to take sometime for it to start winning. But that DOES NOT mean that we should stop fighting .
Therefore the War on Drugs is GOOD.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||5||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF, so conduct to Pro. I give the arguments points to Con however. Con showed that the war on drugs wasn't working, by giving stats backed up by sources that showed drug use hasn't gone down. They also showed how it was costing quite a bit of money [which is bad considering it isn't working,] and that it's putting a strain on our prison systems. All of these arguments were backed up with sources. Pro on the other hand had weaker arguments, that weren't backed up with sources. They conceded that the war on drugs was failing, but they said that if it ends, illicit drug usage will rise, however this is only a speculation, as there were no sources provided to back this up. Since Con was able to show the war on drugs doesn't work, and it's many drawbacks, he wins the arguments point. He also wins the sources points because he backed up his points with credible sources such as the US Bureau of Justice, whereas Pro had no sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.