The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
PreacherFred
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

The War on Drugs is Unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure

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: 1/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,526 times Debate No: 1445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

First off, the war on drugs is unconstitutional. While the bill of rights does not specifically address this, the spirit of the document is that of keeping the government out of our personal lives. If someone wants to ingest chemical substances in the privacy of their own home, it may not be the healthiest thing to do, granted, but it is not the function of our government to interfere in activities that are completely personal to us and do not hurt anyone else by us doing them. By ignoring this important fact, we are prying open the door of tyranny and civil rights abuse. We, as United States citizens, are obligated to keep the government true in its duties to us by letting it know when it is overstepping its authority and voting accordingly. We have taken our eye off the ball on this issue, and it is time for action.

The three main reasons why proponents of the drug war justify this endeavor despite the obvious infraction of our basic civil liberties are:
1)Health detriments due to drug use
- It is not the governments job to tell us about our health; you cannot hope to outlaw every activity that may be unhealthy.
2)impairment of judgement due to drug use
- This is the strongest argument here, because you can affect others with impaired judgement, however it is an inherently flawed one. The ends absolutely never can justify the means, and that is what this argument essentially is. We might as well put all autistic individuals to death right away if we go down this road, and if the government is empowered to tell us what state of mind we should be in then we are in BIG trouble. We will have to make due with punishing individuals after the fact that hurt people while under the influence of mind-altering substances. This is the way our justice system works for every other crime; our justice system can only technically arrest people who have already committed crimes, not people who may be in the position to do so in the future.
3)general family values in contradiction with drug use.
- These "family values" arguments made by the christian right are especially distasteful, as they aim to dictate at the end of a gun how people should conduct the nuances of their lives. The family values arguments against drugs are similar in logic to the arguments against homosexuality. If homosexuals want to sodomize each other, its their own business. I hear people say "well I don't agree with homosexuality but its not right for the government to tell them what to do". NO ONE CARES whether you agree with it! Homosexuals are not knocking on peoples doors and asking them whether they agree with them! We are talking about passing laws here; if you pass laws based on opinions then you are taking the path towards dictatorship.

Secondly, The War on Drugs is immoral. The stories of cancer patients being raided by swat teams after states grant them the right to smoke to ease their pain is just the tip of the iceberg here; peoples civil liberties are being smashed to pieces in the name of the War on Drugs and a full third of our prisons are housing drug offenders. Drug addicts need help, not prison sentences.

And third, the war on drugs is a complete and utter failure. Countless billions of dollars spent, countless people's lives tarnished by drug convictions, and the average Joe can still walk two houses down and get any drug he could possibly want. Crack, cocaine, marijuana, extasy, heroine, acid, and mushrooms are so easily available that it is almost laughable. The main difference that the drug warriors have made for us, is that by keeping drugs illegal, you create an especially lucrative market for illegal drug dealers (especially foeign ones!). We could put every evil drug dealer in the world out of business practically overnight by decriminalizing drugs... but who wants to do that :P!! Furthermore, We cannot effectively help drug addicts while they are being persecuted as criminals. If drugs were legal, we could put strict controls on them, and "junkies" could be persuaded easily into safe havens where they could find the drugs, and under the supervision of professionals and doctors, they could get high in a place where they could not hurt anyone else.

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded"-Abraham Lincoln, 1840
PreacherFred

Con

There is some concern that the War on Drugs in the United States might be unconstitutional, even among legislators. At the time of Prohibition, Congress found it wise to amend the constitution. Attorney Warren Redlich would argue that the drug laws violate the implicit rights contained within the substantive due process doctrine as they achieve no reasonable state interest but restrict a person's liberty under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. This argument is often cited in medical marijuana cases. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, NORML filed an amicus brief that argued to save one's life is within the rights established by the substantive due process. However, the Supreme Court did not accept the argument. Therefore, to state that the War on Drugs is definitively unconstitutional is suspect as evidenced by the cited court decision. Only the United States Supreme Court can make that statement valid and it has yet to do so.

It certainly is true that not everyone who uses illicit drugs becomes a drug addict. It is also true that, on average, a drug addict detrimentally affects at least ten other lives which would negate your argument that drug use does not "hurt anyone else by us doing them." You stated yourself that impairment of judgment caused by drug use can affect others. Could it not be argued that the government has a duty to protect non-drug users from those effects? Ruined personal lives, ruined marriages and the effects on children eat at the very core of our society. If the legality of the laws prohibiting the use and possession of certain drugs has not been successfully challenged in the courts then you certainly are correct in stating that "our justice system can only technically arrest people who have already committed crimes…" The justice system is working according to its design.

There is no evidence that only the Christian right argues against the inroads that illegal drug use has made on "family values." I am sure that people of all faiths, or non-faiths, both support and condemn the War on Drugs. The argument against illicit drugs is the effect it has on the social fabric of our country as well as the detrimental effects it has on marriages and children. Laws ARE proposed and passed based upon the opinion of the legislators and has been done in this country since its inception. I don't think you could say that our country is on the path to dictatorship.

Sufficient legal pain medications exist that are more effective than smoking marijuana in the treatment of cancer. If cancer patients are being raided by SWAT teams it is because they are breaking the law. It is a choice that they made. The fight to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes is a ruse on the American public to open the door to legalize all illicit drugs.

Drug addicts can effectively be helped while they are incarcerated. Most jail systems have "drug units" where the emphasis is on drug rehabilitation. For some drug addicts, incarceration was the only way in which they could beat the habit. I have personally worked with many of them and seen the success of these programs. If illicit drugs were to be made legal than it might be appropriate for them to be prescribed by a doctor. The concept of "safe havens" supervised by professionals and doctors where individuals can enter and get high at will sounds similar to locking up mentally challenged people and keeping them drugged so they are away from society like the mental institutions of the 40's and 50's! Who is going to pay for the safe havens that you propose? Either they will have to be funded by taxes or the drug users will still resort to whatever means at their disposal to gain entry into these havens in order to get high.

Therefore, you have failed to prove your point that the War on Drugs is both unconstitutional and immoral. Additionally, you have not offered any evidence to support your claim that it is also a failure. There is, however, substantial evidence that it is just that: a failed policy and program that needs to be replaced with an effective one but not necessarily the legalization of all illicit drugs.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate!

As far as the supreme court goes, I will have you note that the supreme court has changed its own rulings before. Our laws are not all 100% constitutional, else there would not be much need to ever change the laws. Therefore, I assert that the fact that drugs are illegal does not automatically dictate that the law is constitutional.

Drug addicts affect at least 10 other lives detrimentally? A plausible notion, but I can affect 10 others detrimentally by coloring my hair green, but that's not grounds for making hair dye illegal. But you're not talking about hair dye, you are talking about "Ruined personal lives, ruined marriages and the effects on children eat at the very core of our society". Ruined personal lives are none of the governments concern, I have the right to ruin my personal life as much as I want. The marriage example is similar, although I guess you could say the partner's life is ruined too, but the partner should have been smarter than to marry a drug addict in the first place. People marry other people for horrible reasons all the time, even when everyone else can tell that one or both of them have no chance of being faithful. The responsibility, therefore, must lie in your choice of wedding. I will say that ruining childrens lives is never a good thing, and drugs could certainly do that, but I think you must demonstrate that the WoD is going to be effective at diminishing this occurence, before you assert that The WoD is justified BASED on this occurance. My points are that the WoD is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure, and to refute any of these based on the facts that drugs are bad, you need to at least show that the WoD is holding these effects at bay. "Could it not be argued that the government has a duty to protect non-drug users from those effects?" I suppose it could, although the strategy they use should probably work if they are going to do it at the cost of billions of dollars and taking away people's civil liberties.

I will concede the arguments in your third paragraph because I put my foot in my mouth in my first round on Christianity, although your last sentence, where you propose that we are NOT on the path to dictatorship, I will address. I think we are on the road to dictatorship, when we pass laws based on what our legislators feel "family values" ought to be. While morality and justice remain absolute, family values are not absolute, and differ significantly over space and time. Most people agree generally on basic family values, granted, but unfortunately there are those among us that would use this practice for tyrrany. Consider an atheist, in the government, passing laws based on his idea of family values. He thinks that the church ruins the family because it purports non-scientific ideas to the public, that can ruin a child's sense of reason, and justifies outlawing church practices. Then he spends billions of dollars on the War on Church, and, instead of getting a 2/3rds vote in congress, declares war anyway. Churchgoers are put in jail, fined, and their work histories reflect misdemeanors and felonies due to dangerous practices of "superstitious reasoning". To make it worse, scientists have now linked cases of church going with poor high school test scores, and the scourge of churchgoing is seen as a threat to basic human values and dignity. When Churchgoers complain about this, people tell them that the "government has a duty to protect non-CHURCHGOERS from those effects", because the children are innocent and deserve a chance.

As for your fourth paragraph, those medicinal marijuana patients worked hard to overturn their states unconstitutional statutes, and through the legal system, succeeded in doing so. It was the federal government who arbitrarily decided to step in and terrorize these people. Now, while the federal gov't does have the authority to overrule the state gov't, this was still a very questionable act to say the least. Since when does our government use raids in this fashion? I thought it was the bad guys they did that too, not a bunch of dying cancer patients with leg braces and crutches, doing what they can to make their last days in this life worth living. I am telling you that this whole situation is fishy. The chief of the (san francisco?) police, back in 1990, stated that "we are in a war, and casual marijuana users are commiting treason, and should be taken outside and shot". This is the mentallity that I am addressing here; that we are letting a bunch of zealots run around abusing civil liberties so they can keep their jobs as crooked drug police. I can't prove it, but I highly suspect that the drug war is being perpetuated by people for one reason, and one reason only: money. I believe that there are a lot of evil drug manufacturers, outside of the US, that are in collaboration with our own evil drug warriors here at home. Once in a while, a big bust is made (which makes the price of the drugs soar, btw) in order to make it look good, but they are in it together. How can we be sure that the drug warriors aren't taking moneys from the drug dealers? How could they NOT be, if you think about it. Corruption is not something that happens in one gov't and not another. Corruption is a statistic that affects all gov't's , and the best you can do is to be technically precise with the laws to minimize it's occurence. You can never fully eradicate it, all you can do is stick to the books. The WoD presents an amazingly clear and present danger to the effectiveness of our gov't, because of it's moral and constitutional ignorance.
"The fight to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes is a ruse on the American public to open the door to legalize all illicit drugs". I will actually agree with you on this. Personally, I am a little sick of the "medicinal marijuana" arguments, because we should be fighting for a complete legalization of all drugs. I think that people who are fighting for medicinal marijuana are only helping to cheapen the fact that the WoD is completely immoral, unconstitutional, and a failure. I guess it is a step in the right direction, but it is NOT working, as the raids suggest, and it is not a strong enough assertion of justice. Sometimes it makes me feel like it is not a ruse on the American public to open the door to legalize all illicit drugs, but a ruse to make us feel like justice is on the way, when it's not. It's kind of like those electric cars, that every year for the past thirty years they have been coming up with one, just to make us feel like we are about to become clean and energy independent, but the cars never hit the showrooms.

You talk about better cancer medicines. What could the logic possibly be, to stop a terminally ill cancer patient dead in their tracks for smoking weed, and then hand them another drug which is artificial, possibly WAY more dangerous to use, and not as satisfying to them? What would you suggest, doctor?

"Drug addicts can effectively be helped while they are incarcerated". sigh.... Yes, let's see here. I've lost my job, can't get another one because of my record, and I've been fined and put in jail, not to mention harassed by the police and made an official criminal by society. Thanks for the help.

Are you aware that a third of our prisons are filled with drug offenders? I think we'll have plenty of money to pay for my safe havens, when we quit spending it on the WoD and keeping drug addicts locked up. I wouldn't use the economy in your arguments against me because the possibilities are inestimable of how much money we could save on prison, direct WoD financing, and profit from marijuana sales and hemp products. Drug addicts spend Billions each year, which flies right out of our borders without being taxed.

I disagree that I have not shown my case. I will keep showing it to you, if you'd like.
PreacherFred

Con

Your stated focus of the debate concerns, first, the constitutionality of the War on Drugs. While it may be true that "our laws are not all 100% constitutional" the fact remains that only the Supreme Court has the power to definitively decide on the constitutionality of any law. You may be of the opinion that laws regulating drugs are unconstitutional; you cannot prove that position without citing actual court decisions. We have seen several Medical Necessity challenges make it through the lower courts, but these have not been appealed to the higher courts, therefore no precedence has been set. Aside from your own personal opinions, any law that declares a certain drug to be illegal is constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court issues an opinion that they are not. The fact that a future court may rescind the decision of a prior court is irrelevant. The latest Supreme Court decision is the one in effect and you cannot produce any evidence of a U. S. Supreme Court opinion declaring the War on Drugs as being unconstitutional. Therefore, you argument is unsupported and fails.

The fact that a drug addict adversely affects the lives of at least 10 other people is an accepted fact by drug addiction counselors nationwide. While you may dubiously have the right to ruin your own life, you do not have the right to ruin another's. Your green hair theory pales to the effects of drug addiction on people's lives. Even you agree that ruining the life of a child is never a good thing. The government certainly has an interest in the welfare of the majority of the people or defenseless children. To paraphrase your own statement, government has a duty to protect non-drug addicts from their effects, because the children are innocent and deserve a chance.

Thank you for conceding the anti-Christianity and homosexual theories as being invalid. Religion does not dictate family values. It would be safe to say that theists and atheists maintain the same concepts of family values and of morals which are "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior." You agree by stating "Most people agree generally on basic family values." Your atheist theory is not plausible since he would not likely have been able to pass a law, or series of laws, in a congress where (to use your words) "Most people agree generally on basic family values."

While I am not a doctor and don't see the appropriateness of the use of sarcasm in any debate, I could reverse your statement concerning the legal medications available to cancer patients. Where did anyone ever state that medication is supposed to be satisfying? Castor Oil certainly wasn't satisfying!

While many people may be working to change the laws regarding marijuana use for medicinal purposes and have succeeded in some states to legalize its use, no challenge to the federal laws have succeeded at the U.S. Supreme Court level. How can the federal government's right to overrule a state law be questionable? Isn't that the way our country was set up? Couldn't the states, then, be construed as unconstitutionally allowing a federal law to be ignored? I am sure that you can come up with several examples where enforcement has used tactics that may be construed as excessive. Can you provide any court opinions where a conviction was overturned in your examples? The fact remains that anyone who knowingly and deliberately breaks a law puts themselves into the position of being arrested, tried and convicted as a result of their choice.
As I stated, I have personally worked with drug addicts in the Bristol County House of Corrections. Many have related to me that they would never have stopped using drugs if they had not been sent to jail. One, in particular, sat in his apartment one evening crying, with his head between his hands praying to his God to do something because he tried but couldn't stop. Within fifteen minutes he was arrested. He completed the drug rehabilitation program and today has three drug-free years. Perhaps one would reconsider his choice to use drugs if he realized beforehand that he might lose his job and spend some time in prison as a result. In any event, the numbers in jail or suggestions on taxing drug sales, etc. don't prove that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral or a failure.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

Very well put preachefred! You are the third person I have put this argument to, with this thesis, and you are the first to overcome my first argument, that the WoD is absolutely unconstitutional. In the language I put forth, I cannot support my argument on constitutional grounds. I will have to change the language in my future battles on this subject, and I thank you for showing me the fault in my logic.

When the constitution was first concocted, many of the issues we face today like abortion, gay marriage, environmental protection, the War on Drugs etc. were simply not around to be addressed. The framers did not offer specific answers to many of the hot-button issues that we struggle with in modern politics, and we must do our best to infer, from the spirit of the document, what follows suit, and what does not. A framework of morality and justice was built to guide the law making process, in the interests of reducing tyrrany in the absolute best way possible. The Supreme Court and congress have not seen sufficient momentum within public opinion to be pressured into overturning the current prohibition, although it would seem, in my opinion, that the spirit of the document would certainly be inconsistent with current prohibition laws. "Spirit" is not a clearly definable word though, and I cannot technically use it to defend my case on legal grounds. I think that public opinion, however, has a very good chance of being swayed in the decade to come. In fact, two of our presidential nominees, Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, are totally for decriminalization. Their numbers in the polls may not be high, but I think that, especially with more and more power being weilded through the internet, the day will come when drug users are helped instead of persecuted.

It is another thing to say that the constitution SHOULD be interpreted to protect citizen's rights to whatever state of mind they choose on themselves.

The ninth ammendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

To paraphrase-The bill of rights lists ONLY the most basic rights, that are cardinal in importance. Other rights, that are not as important as, say, the right to a fair trial, should not be disparaged just because the framers didn't list every single right that shall not be denied.

You have defeated my first argument, preacherfred, but remember this: If we had a constitutional debate in the year you were born, you could have defeated a thesis of "It is unconstitutional that black citizens be forced to give up their bus-seats to white citizens" in the same way you defeated my current thesis. I want you to think about that, and the fact that even though I would have lost that argument in 1950, and I will lose this argument in 2008, your general stance on the WoD's constitutionality is just as morally wrong, in my personal opinion, as the constitutional stance on black's rights in 1950.

I didn't disagree with the ten person theory, I agree that drugs are a generally negative thing, just like an abortion is a generally negative thing. But there exists a point, in which there are negative consequences on both ends of a decision, and you have to weigh the implications of each to see what to do. The WoD and abortion are both issues like this, and there is a reason I take the liberal stance on each of them. I believe that both issues represent cases where citizen's implied civil liberties are threatened in an unjust way, in order to justify the ends that "we are better off in society as a whole". No abortions, no worries about killing human fetuses; no legal drugs, no worries about widespread drug use and the associated social detriments. When you take away a person's civil liberties, in this case, a person's right to the mental state he or she deems fit for themselves, you are opening the door for further civil liberties abuse, not to mention taking away from the very essence of life itself. Freedom of expression, which is diminished by the WoD, is deeply affected by prohibition, as the hippies demonstrated in the 70's with the acid trips and the like. How I raise my child, yes the one that deserves a chance preacherfred, is my freedom of expression and has NOTHING to do with what you think is the way I should raise my child. You imply that drug users are ruining the lives of their children and not giving the children a "chance". You seem to imply that your definition of chance means something physical, like not being beat up by a drunk father or something, but your definition of "chance" in my eyes, as I read it, is "Preacherfred's concept of a good family". You would not like to see a generation born that is indifferent to prohibiting drugs. You want to see the WoD perpetuated indefinitely, while we spend $1 Billion a week (and rising) paying drug warriors that are probably more corrupt than Rudy's police chief to fight a losing battle against drug lords, while the people's civil liberties are curtailed in the process. Politicians in the fifties were very mad to see negros let into schools, and prayer taken out of schools, because it affected what their opinion of a good family should be. Your concept of a good family is shared by congress for the moment, as you said. But I think that a new era of reasoning is on the horizon, in which we are going to recognize that the pride-laden reasoning of the past, in which people seek to embelish their own lifestyle and force it on others, whether it be their religion, family values, or skin color, is simply not in accordance with the spirit of our constitution, or the spirit of liberty and justice.

Pain medication doesn't HAVE to be satisfying, but I think the people have a right to satisfying medication even if you don't.

The federal gov't's right to overrule a state law is not questionable; what was questionable was drug warriors raiding cancer patients and the gov't's general ability to discriminate against drug users. You see, when there is injustice in a society, what happens is you tend to see questionable "legal" practices conducted, like this. Just like how the police hauling Rosa Parks off a bus in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat to a white man would look questionable to bystanders and make you go "hmmm", this looks questionable and gives people like me food for thought about how the same injustices of old are still affectingg our nation, but in different form. Are you sure, preacherfred, that your logical line of thinking in this case would not put you on the wrong side of the debate if you were alive in the forties? Does it not seem that a radical moralist like me might be arguing a stickler to the law and family values like you in this same fashion?

Your story about the rehabilitated junkie is inspiring, but I cannot justify the WoD based on an example like this. I can give you plenty of examples of the system ruining junkies lives as well, as I think a third of current prison inmates would agree with me on. It is a good story, but drug users, on the whole, are not looking to being arrested as their saving moment in life.

As to the WoD's success, I think all it does is kill children's chances of RESISTING the drugs. Drugs are hidden from society while illegal, and despite programs like DARE(drug abuse useless education, one of my biggest druggy friends from HS used to love wearing his DARE shirt while he got high), children often encounter drugs for the first time, in seclusion, in the exlusive company of other drug addicted children. If we weren't forcing drug users to the margins of society, they would be exposed and no child would ever be confused about the implications at hand. Furthermore, the "mystery", the innate curiousity that drives the hearts and souls of all children would not be attracted to such a well-known and easily-referenced phenomena such as the vice of drug abuse.
PreacherFred

Con

Thank you for your compliments. You concede, then, that you have failed to prove your contention that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional. Thereby, you agree that you have failed to prove 1/3 of your statement.

The next third of your statement is that the War on Drugs is immoral. Your points supporting this argument seem to still revolve around constitutional issues claiming that "citizens' implied civil liberties are threatened in an unjust way." The question of a law's constitutionality is a legal issue, not a moral issue. The concept of morality is easily confused in our modern day. Morality, its origins, and what constitutes the definition of a moral itself, are in the end all subjective ideas. It is left to each individual to listen to ideas of others, but to also decide what is true for them. Textbooks on ethics and morality define the terms by reference to "principles." Moral principles are not just any principles, however, but those that are consistent with goodness, truth and human happiness. Despite their doctrinal differences, the world's major religions remarkably have in common many of the same essential virtues, including humility, love, justice, respect, honesty and prudence, at the heart of their teachings and all teach the way to goodness and happiness in this lifetime as well as the next. These very same virtues can be found too at the core of educational, secular and societal efforts to form good character and responsible citizens. The concept of benefiting the greatest amount of people also falls parallel with the ideas of Mill. Mill supported utilitarianism and developed the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. According to him morality comes by striving for the greatest good; it develops as a result of attaining this greatest good. Since you do not disagree with, as you call it, the "ten person theory, " then it would be moral to do something for the ten adversely affected people by the one drug addict. You stated "I will say that ruining children's lives is never a good thing, and drugs could certainly do that…" One could say that you feel that the effects on innocent children caused by illicit drug users are immoral. If this is so, then any program that benefits these children must be, at least in part, moral. I respectfully submit, therefore, that you have failed to prove that the War on Drugs is immoral.

This brings us to your last assertion that the War on Drugs is a complete failure. Used as an adjective, Webster defines complete as "Having every necessary or normal part or component or step; "a complete meal"; "a complete wardrobe"; "a complete set of the Britannica"; "a complete set of china"; "a complete defeat"; "a complete accounting". It is further defined as Without qualification; used informally as (often pejorative) intensifiers; "an errant fool"; "a complete coward"; "a consummate fool"; "a double-dyed villain"; "gross negligence"; "a perfect idiot"; "pure folly"; "what a sodden mess"; "stark staring mad"; "a thoroughgoing villain"; "utter nonsense". Webster defines a failure as "An act that fails, an event that does not accomplish its intended purpose, lack of success." You have not offered any evidence that this is true of the War on Drugs. By the very definition of the words used, the War on Drugs cannot be deemed a complete failure since it is ongoing. Having not been ended yet, it is not complete so one cannot say it has not accomplished its goals so it cannot be a complete failure just yet!

I would hope that those who read and vote on this debate will do so on its merits and not on the underlying purpose of advancing the legalization of drugs. The statement that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral and a failure has not been proven by my opponent!

Rob, I believe that your real mission is to advocate for the legalization of drugs. This goal could be achieved if you would concentrate on passing newer laws that effect this. The War on Drugs is established by law and can be changed and even eliminated by law. I do not support that concept, however. I believe more of the War on Drugs effort should be in curtailing the big pushers and the main supplies. Drug cartels have become so powerful that they have taken over whole countries. More effort and monies should also be funneled into the rehabilitation end. The War on Drugs certainly needs major improvement but just in the loss of lives, legalizing drugs would be too costly.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Fred we need to have a rematch.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
The problem with public opinion is that it depends on the media, which insists on continueing to brainwash the public on the horrors that would result from ending drug prohibition despite numorous academic studies that indicate otherwise. It really is a shame. But, there are a few enlightening trends, for instance California has allowed marijuana for medical use and in the mid-90's Arizona basically ended the war on drugs all together, but the federal government didn't allow it (apparently the federal government hasn't heard of the the tenth ammendment).

Rob1billion, it is nice to see another educated person on the behalf of the cause. Sometimes there are morons who argue the case so stupidly that it makes the entire cause look completely irrational. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
cloppbeast, it is a strange world in which we live in, indeed. But, as preacherfred alluded to, we are going to have to wait until public opinion starts to swing in our favor before many politicians are going to be willing to act in this matter. Maybe it will take 70 years of failure in the WoD, instead of 35, before the public will wake up and decide that something is wrong. Maybe if the drug problem starts affecting some of these people a little more close to home, they will get a taste of injustice themselves. A lot of people have the mistaken impression that everyone else should be JUST LIKE them, and since they don't do drugs, and don't have a drug problem in their immediate family, the issue is simply a matter of BAD MORALS and should be swept under the carpet. I, for one, cannot believe the arrogance and malicious pride of people who argue that their own family values ought to be shoved down everyone else's throats, while civil liberties are abused and problems in society go unchecked. You point out one of the glaring logical fallacies that are present in their reasoning, and there are plenty others, but they don't care about that as long as they are getting their way. Unfortunately, it is the poor who are most damaged by these laws, and as we all know, the poor are not likely to vote and stand up for themselves. I would like to see this issue resolved, in the future, and I think that when we solve the problem of getting everybody educated and into the polls, we will see a lot of our other problems like this disappear.
Posted by cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
//You stated yourself that impairment of judgment caused by drug use can affect others. Could it not be argued that the government has a duty to protect non-drug users from those effects?//

With this logic, PreacherFred, the amount of legislation necessary would leave citizens without liberty whatsoever. Couldn't something as insignificant as calling someone a name be considered an impairment of judgment, leaving an affect on others? Will there be Thought Police to enforce this legislation against impaired judgment?
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Thanks, Logical-Master for the compliment. While experience does count for something, nothing beats doing your homework. I don't subscribe to the notion that just because I am older, I must be smarter. I think each generation can learn from each other!
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Fred has the advantage in mostly all the debates since he no doubt beats most of us in experience.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Congrats on shooting down part of the argument Fred. I think I'm going Con for that. The second issue is too subjective to be of much use as a real indicator. And since you only got the third on a technicality... I'll call it a 50/50 split...

Excellent - I enjoyed the parallels between this debate and my own on the subject.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Hmmmm , no thanks . I already had my whole debate on how bad it would be to legalize drugs , however I think this site , but there are too many drug supporters on the site.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
I think you saw how well I argued and made the RIGHT choice to decline. I don't blame you man, you'll be nice and safe if you keep your distance from me. If you'd like, I'll change the title and and go easy on you for the first two rounds, then COME BACK AND SMOKE YOU IN THE THIRD!
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
He tried me too, but I refuse to debate an exact debate that has been posted numerous times to others. I want originality.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 PreacherFred 8 years ago
PreacherFred
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 cloppbeast 9 years ago
cloppbeast
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 Watchman81 9 years ago
Watchman81
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
Rob1BillionPreacherFredTied
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