The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
47 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: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,583 times Debate No: 1449
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (21)

 

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
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

I feel this is somewhat of a spin-off from our earlier debate, as much of it wound up focused on the hypothetical man smoking weed in his house. I shall argue that in principle the War on Drugs is Constitutional, partially moral, and neither success nor failure. Keeping in mind that NOT immoral and NOT failure do not indicate moral and success, I propose we retain our definition of moral as that which produces a just state, and attempt to provide some objective data concerning the purpose of the War on Drugs, which I consider to be the reduction of drug use and availability in America.

Let us examine some legislation regarding the constitutionality of the War on Drugs (WoD if it pleases). Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This is the primary legislation from which the right to privacy is taken, but Amendment 9 certainly helps too: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

There have been several court cases concerning this - Miranda v Arizona, Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade... although Miranda deals more with search & seizure than privacy - but it is relevant to the man smoking in his house. This right to privacy is meant to protect the individual. The laws in place to further the WoD are there to protect society. I shall address your three points in this area below.

1) Health detriments as a result of drug use. If someone wishes to inject themselves with chemicals and addle their brain, that is none of my business. But as soon as they crash and are taken to the local hospital where they can't pay the bill, it becomes the taxpayers' problem. I, as the taxpayer, can't simply go take the chemicals from the other person - that violates his rights that protect him from other individuals. I'd be breaking and entering, stealing, probably assaulting... the list goes on. With no way to protect myself from the taxes I pay to support the medical care that druggies receive when they crash, I must then use my political power (the vote) to elect officials that will remove the other individual's right to use these chemicals.

2) Impairment of judgment due to drug use. I don't believe this is flawed at all. It's not a case of "the ends justify the means," but rather a case of "this has happened in the past, let's make sure it doesn't in the future." Some types of drugs impair the judgment more than others, and there are some that impair the judgment even when used in moderation. Granted, you will probably split hairs here, comparing alcohol and marijuana instead of caffeine and cocaine. I don't think the argument that arresting drug users based on their potential for harm is bad is valid. Should not a man with a bomb strapped to him be arrested before he detonates it? Or a man in a mall with an assault rifle be arrested before he fires it? How far back does that go? Do you arrest the man while he's making the bomb? Arrest the shooter as he cleans his rifle that morning? The legal system cannot prove intent - only show that there is the possibility for danger. That is why laws concerning possession and use of drugs stand.

3) Family values are in conflict with drug use. The inclusion of Christians and homosexuals utterly dumbfounds and baffles me. Family values are not dependent on religion. Religion is dependent on family values. An atheist family can be against drug use because it creates rifts in the family structure, makes the children less responsive to the parents, gets them into other drugs, gets them into other types of crime, the list goes on.... None of those are dependent on religion. The reason family values are in conflict with drug use is because drug use degrades the family structure.

The WoD is not inherently immoral. Granted, SWAT raids on grandmas in wheelchairs smoking pot are excessive and stupid... I'm not sure where the destruction of civil liberties comes into play. Before you can argue that the WoD is immoral, you have to demonstrate that the laws governing it are immoral or unconstitutional. I agree that drug addicts need help. Perhaps you want to donate the money to build rehab centers? Drug distributors need to be placed in jail. The WoD is focused on creating a safer society - not persecuting the individual. How is a safer society immoral?

Here is where I believe I might concede your point. Yes, the WoD has not been successful, but it is not a failure. Rather, I would view it as a work in progress. It is starting to get some better plans - as a result of the WoD, all 50 states now have drug courts - systems that allow users to go through rehab instead of being placed in prison. There is also some question (like you raise) about the morality of imprisoning non-violent drug users.

I think we can both agree that violent drug users are a danger to society and need to be removed from it. Perhaps laws regarding the distribution of more potent drugs (cocaine, heroine, actually - the opiates) should stand.

I also believe your solution of legalizing drugs to be in err - or at least the way you favor doing it. If we removed the drinking age requirement in the US, deaths from alcohol-related incidents would soar, especially among teens. The same would occur if drugs were suddenly legalized. The gradual release of the government's tight control on drugs could provide a source of new revenue - taxing marijuana would be an incredible source of income. However, the overnight solution is NOT correct - there needs to be some sort of socialization towards the concept at the family level. It is similar to drinking in Europe - it is part of family life there, and they don't have much of a problem. But overnight legalization is simply not a viable solution.

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country." - Abraham Lincoln
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Excellent introduction. I am honored that you are going to use my definition of morality to forward your case. Yes, this is in part a spin-off of our last debate, because you made some points that I want to isolate and address here. But, on the other hand, I have before and will in the future pose this argument to anyone who doesn't agree with my thesis.... unless of course you show me that my argument is flawed...

1) Your rebuttal depends on the fact that WoD CAN reduce your risk. I agree that you should not have to deal with the junkie in the semi truck that's high on methamphetamines, but that doesn't mean that outlawing drugs will actually quell that concern. If you can't show that it does, then your points are invalid. My point here, specifically, was that the government should not control what a person can and cannot do in the name of "health". Any argument that supports the WoD because drugs are unhealthy is simply wrong. If you don't see the slippery slope here I will outline it for you. I will grant, that if you can show that the WoD is a success, it will necessarily weaken this argument of mine, and we will have to revisit this point again.

2) I will not split hairs, I will defend all common drugs, unless my argument gets stretched ridiculously to include anthrax (viruses) or some kind of drug used as a weapon, but since bleach is more dangerous than any common drug, I should be fine. I think you have a mistaken idea of our justice system. A lot of people think that police officers are here to "serve and protect" among other things, but police officers have a very specific role in this society of ours. They arrest people who have broken the law. They don't, ..... I feel kind of stupid calling you Tarzan, like I have a joke being played on me... They don't arrest people who are LIKELY to be breaking the law soon. Let me provide an example. I say, hey Tarzan! You are pissing me off with your anti-drug sentiments online and I am going to kill you!! Now let's assume I actually know where you live. You can call the police, and possibly get me for a threat, maybe get me locked up for a night if you are lucky. But Officers are really not going to be able to stop me, in the end, because until I've perpetrated the crime, I'm untouchable. If you had an officer at your side 24/7 you could stop me on assault charges or something to that effect, but that is not feasable. My point here, is that our government has very specific functions, dictated by the constitution, and that although "crime prevention" and "serve and protect" get thrown around a lot, it is not TECHNICALLY what they do. Crime prevention is an indirect result of the very specific tasks that officers have the authority to do - mainly arresting people who break the law. Consider that in my example, you actually had the officer there. If I saw him, and ran away, I would not get charged with murder. You could get me at a lesser charge, at most attempted murder, but you could probably not even get me for that unless I swung a weapon at you or something to that effect. You would be completely unable to stop me, through use of the police department. The "crime prevention" would only take the form of my own conscience, reminding me of what could happen AFTER the fact. This lengthy explanation is what I would use to show you that the government does not have the authority to make drugs illegal simply based on the fact that someone could possibly use it to commit an injustice. I could commit plenty of injustices with any object in my room, but that doesn't make them cause for concern. Your examples: The man with the bomb has ALREADY broken the law, as is with the rifleman in the mall. And no, the rifleman can clean his gun in the privacy of his own house for as long as he wants, because of the second ammendment. You must not take that right away from him, without commiting a grave injustice. If gun owners want to kill people with guns, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO. Nothing at all, until they have perpetrated the crime. Of course, gun rights is another issue, but I could simply use an axe as an example instead, and get the same effect. And yes, my argument of the ends justifying the means stands, because as with any family values argument, that is what is happening: we would like no one to abuse drugs, so we make them illegal. The ends, utopia, justify the means, prohibition. This logic, which has been tested endlessly through the millenia, can lead to much evil (much more than drugs ;) )

3) I use a proxy for my first round argument, and I keep forgetting to delete the parts out of it that have been successfully refuted, which is mainly the homosexuals and religion paragraph. I'm sorry for missing that, I will concede that my homosexuals argument is tangented and my connection of family values to religion is flawed. As far as my family values argument in general goes, I would say that we don't agree, because you still percieve family values to be a good reason to pass laws. I argue that family values cannot be dictated. You say that drug use degrades the family structure. What's your definition of "degrading the family structure"? What if your politicians think that debate.org degrades the family structure? Should it be illegal? I bet there are some people that think a lot of things degrade the family structure, that only degrade what they *think* the family should be like. Therefore, family values, which are not absolute, are not grounds for laws, because family values are drastically different from place to place, in different times, to different peoples. Morality is absolute. Justice is absolute. Family values to me and you are completely different, and if you could pass a law to perpetuate your family values, mine would be affected adversely. If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that family values were absolute AND that drugs necessarily destroyed them, you would still need to show that the WoD is effective at controlling them, before you refute it.

WoD not successful, not a failure? I don't support that reasoning, because it simply is. First off, you need to show that this war can help reduce drug use to support most of your arguments, in my opinion, because there is no point in the waste of resources if it is not. Waste of resources includes:
1) Billions spent on the WoD in the last two decades
2) fines, jail and prison sentences to non-violent, drug possession convictions (I won't include distribution)
3) suppression of rights of marijuana users
4) Job histories ruined due to past drug possession convictions

And to say it's not a failure, when the average tenth grader has NO problem procuring drugs, and there are distributors everywhere, users everywhere, is simply a gross understatement. The possibilites of drug control, while legal, have not even been explored yet because we haven't had the faith in our citizenry to try. I bet we could put drug dealers out of business overnight by legalizing drugs and putting strict controls on them instead, and when junkies hit rock bottom we can set up places where they can use in the presence of professionals who can detain them temporarily until they sober up, so they don't hurt anyone else.

Violence is violence anyway you slice it, and should be dealt with accordingly. I only defend people's freedoms of choice; they have the right to choose, but choices have consequences. I say we should let the people make their own choices, but punish them if their actions have immoral consequences. Being high, in and of itself, is not immoral at all.

I won't defend an overnight strategy, I suppose a slow but sure process would be acceptable. But that's not what we are doing now...

I won't defend adult-age-requirements for drug consumption. We can stick to adults.

Your quote is tactful and witty (taking it from Abe) but I don't see how you can use it against me...
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

I feel rather silly beginning an argument with no introduction. I wasn't sure one was needed, but I do have a short point to make here - you wish for someone to demonstrate that your argument is flawed. I don't believe that your argument or premise is inherently flawed, but perhaps too inflammatory. I believe you can defend most of your argument, but I don't believe you can actually achieve that type of unilateral solution I infer you're attempting.

1) I feel you haven't appropriately responded to my objections about using my political power of the vote to propagate what I believe to be the best course of action to protect myself against the burden that crashed druggies represent to the medical care system. It's not a case of the government intervening in a personal health decision - it's the government intervening to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Of course, I expect you to hammer me here with the monetary burden of the WoD - That could be better managed, yes, but if I recall, the institutions responsible for the WoD would exist anyway, regardless of the status of a WoD.

2) Yes - police officers arrest people who have broken the law. Pushing aside the fact that drug possession is illegal, I'll try to focus on the abstract. Lets revisit the man with the gun in the mall. Suppose he has handguns instead (and a carry permit, of course, and this isn't Illinois or someplace with weird gun laws, etc...). He walks down the street - public property - with 8 handguns strapped to him. Should not the police at least stop and question him? He represents an imminent possible danger to society, even though he's committed no crime yet. In the same fashion, if someone high on cocaine is walking down the street (remember - opiates tend towards violence) should he not be stopped and questioned as well for the danger he represents? Does he need to actually attack someone before the police act?

I shall concede my bomber was a poor example. Although possession of the materials necessary to make a decent bomb is not illegal...

Let me ask you if the ends justify the means when you legalize drugs... Does the end (free drug use) justify the means (legalization and the resulting massive increase in underage abuse)? Should we create an unjust situation for members of society that want to damage themselves, or should we create an unjust situation for the familial structure and our children?

3) I would argue that family values are generally moral values regarding the end of keeping a balanced and friendly family unit. If we are not able to use societal values, and not able to use family values, what value system are we to adopt? I think before you argue against using a certain value system, you need to present an objective value system for us to use. Who determines what a "just state" is? Whose opinion in that regard is correct? In a social contract, you agree to abide by the decision of the majority - if you argue that the majority decision is not valid, then you remove yourself from the social contract. When removed from the social contract, it doesn't matter WHAT you do (in some sense), as long as you don't do it within the same social sphere.

I'll respond briefly here to your four objections...

1) Lots of drugs that would be on the streets lowering the price for the consumer are now in the hands of the government.
2) Good - we're holding them somewhere - now lets put them in rehab.
3) In grandma's case, you have me here. In 14-yr old Johnny's case... he's a minor... his parents are in control of that.
4) You say that like it's a bad thing. I'd want to know if I was hiring someone who was damaging themselves with drugs - it's a drain on my business' human capital.

"I bet we could put drug dealers out of business overnight by legalizing drugs and putting strict controls on them instead, and when junkies hit rock bottom we can set up places where they can use in the presence of professionals who can detain them temporarily until they sober up, so they don't hurt anyone else."

This contradicts what you later say ("I won't defend an overnight strategy"), but I have a different problem with it - who is going to pay for these places and professionals? The junkies can't afford it. As a taxpayer, I'm not likely to vote for that sort of institution.

By the definition of morality we agreed upon, you are correct in that simply being high does not create an unjust situation in society. I don't believe that being high, which damages the body, creates a just state for the individual. In the end, however, I think that's a matter of personal preference though - you may believe being high and damaging one's body is not unjust at all.

My quote was intended to draw out the difference between Prohibition and drug control. Modern drugs in society are vastly different from the problems caused by alcohol. You seem to be adopting a unilateral stance against the illegalization of drugs because you perceive them to violate the rights of the individual. But I argue that society is more important. When the individual releases himself from the holds and damage that drugs have on the body, then, as Lincoln said, we shall save our country.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

1)Yes I could bring up the numbers, for example, we have spent over a billion dollars on the WoD this year. Keep in mind that this year has only had seven days in it so far(as of 01-07-08). A billion a week is a LOT of money; I make 20 grand a year and it would take me fifty thousand years of waiting tables to pay off how much money the WoD spends every week. And no, if drugs were decriminilized, we would NOT be spending this money ANYWAY.
There is nothing wrong with using your vote to forward your favorite cause. I have no arguments against your right to vote. I do have arguments against the effectiveness of the WoD. You need to first show that the WoD is actually helping people stay off drugs, before you assert that you are protecting yourself from junkies by supporting it, ESPECIALLY if you are going to say that you are voting for it to save money for the health care system. Obviously, your financial arguments are not going to stand, and that is before I factor in the taxes we lose on keeping drugs illegal, and the amount of money (think of how much money all the junkies in the country spend on expensive illegal drugs. An eight of an ounce of cocaine has a street value of around $150) that we throw into other countries that make the drugs for our junkies to use.
2)My original premise that started this exchange, not to be confused, was "We will have to make due with punishing individuals after the fact that hurt people while under the influence of mind-altering substances". You countered with "I don't think the argument that arresting drug users based on their potential for harm is bad is valid". Then I refuted your examples, in which you are now modifying so that I cannot find a fallacy in them this time. Of course the police should question him, not because of his potential harm, but because he is already violating gun control laws. You see, the police are not taking the initiative on behalf of potential harm; they are still only arresting someone who is breaking the law. If the man has a carry permit like you say, then he is fine, but I highly doubt there are carry permits that allow this. This argument is becoming extremely tangented and extremely dependent on gun control laws, and I will try to bring us back on track here. I was making a comparison to drunk driving, in which alcohol is legal but you are responsible for the consequences of your actions that are immoral (drunk driving). It sounded really good to people back in the twenties, to take your arguments and apply them to alcohol. Look what happened. Being high while driving is not what I am defending, and I think that if drugs were legal, people who are pulled over who are inebriated, and cannot pass the police's coordination tests, should be arrested, plain and simple. You see, there exists a double-standard in our society with drugs and alcohol. Double-standards are illogical. To rectify the double-standard, there are only two options. Prohibition or decriminalization. We tried prohibition with alcohol. People that disagree with me got their way, and failed miserably. Of course, we have forgotten about that already. The only option here, logically, is decriminalization. You cannot make the argument that drugs are any more dangerous than alcohol, or you will be making a BIG mistake.
The man walking down the street, high on cocaine, is not breaking the law, and should be left alone. Yes, he needs to attack someone, before the police act. That is the law, and not up for debate between you and I. Opiates tend towards violence? What's your evidence for that? Is that like in reefer madness when the guy takes a hit from the joint, and then goes insane and kills some people? Sounds like it! Please present me some evidence, from a reputable, scholarly source such as a journal, that this is true. Please don't bring me some propaganda from the partnership for a drug free america or something like that which thinks that, since drugs are inherently immoral, they can say whatever they want in the interest of family values. We have no laws prohibiting BEING high on drugs, only possessing and distributing them.
No, those ends don't justify those means. I fail to see how you can use that to defend yourself against my argument, and I fail to see how you can say that I am using my ends to justify my means. I am saying that the WoD is using immoral means to justify its ends, and your argument here is not addressing that at all.
3)Your points here are well argued, but again, you are missing my point. Laws are based on morality and justice. Why? Morality and justice are absolute. When you hurt someone, no one can argue it is not immoral. When you are unfair to someone, no one can argue that you are not unjust. You would introduce personal values(or group values, even) to use as grounds to lay down the law. This is a BAD mistake Tarzan, because now you are on the road to tyranny. Values are not absolute, like morality and justice are, and if the gov't is able to pass laws based simply on their values, then we are in big trouble. What are your values? Being in bed by 11pm? Giving money to charity? No pre-marital sex? A good, Christian upbringing? These are all great, but NOT GROUNDS FOR MAKING LAWS. A king could make laws based on his values, but a congress should not have that power. I am totally bypassing your argument "whose values do we use", because I am saying that NO ONES values should be used. That should end that mystery for you. Social contract is an elegant theory, but using it against me to refute my points(the WoD is unconstitutional, immoral, failure) is not logical. The majority may agree with you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the majority is right. If our argument was whether I should be able to use drugs right now, while they are illegal, then I guess you would have me on social contract theory.
1)I say the WoD is expensive, and you say "Lots of drugs that would be on the streets lowering the price for the consumer are now in the hands of the government". I seem to be missing your point.
2)I outline the injustices against non-violent drug users, and you say "good... let's put them in rehab". Let me ask you, Tarzan, are you perfect? Are there things about you, that if I knew you better, I could use against you in such a callous manner? Maybe you speed in your Ford Probe too much, cheated on a test in school, were unfaithful to a girlfriend... and if there were politicians in the gov't, whose values specifically discriminated against your personal faults, you could be arguing against ME for YOUR basic human rights, while I say "Good. You're in jail, let's work on rehabilitating you out of these nasty habits." A genuine attempt at empathy is in order here, and remember that whats goes around, comes around. You will stand in judgement some day, for some reason, and your ability to exercise sound judgement on issues like this will greatly improve your ability to deal with any attacks on your personal liberties in the future.
3)again, I have no quarrels with adult-age requirements, so I would assume we are in agreement on this point?
4)Your abilities, as an employer, to screen job applicants should not be unlimited. It takes a skill to be able to identify good workers, and you have a limited set of tools to work with. You have no business knowing a lot of things about potential employees, and I don't have to outline them here to make my point. Suffice to say, if a drug user gets his life back together and works hard to get into a new job, he shouldn't have to deal with a values-based law infraction on his application. You have drug-screening abilities anyway, at almost ALL jobs nowadays, that can determine if the employee still uses. Some drugs cannot be tested for, granted, but it is obvious that we should be erring on the side of justice, in other words, erring on the side of the least possible abuse of justice. I would say that an employees right to privacy
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

1) I'd like to see a source on that number - that sounds insanely high, considering there have only been 5 business days in '08 (as of today). I never argued that if drugs were decriminalized we'd spend this money anyway - I argued that the some of the institutions that provide the resources for the WoD would still be around, especially since the other main institute besides the DEA in the WoD is the FBI.

Let us suppose that legalizing drugs drops the price of an ounce of cocaine from $150 to $15 - a factor of 10. In order to collect taxes on it, that ounce must be sold in a venue that will charge sales tax. Somehow I don't see Wal-Mart adding a drug aisle to their stores. The lost taxes from criminalizing drugs is immaterial until you can show that there will be places willing to sell them. I'm not sure what foreign countries have to do with anything - we'd still get the more expensive drugs from them - that's where they grow best.

Yet still - none of what you show here provides any evidence that the war on drugs is unconstitutional.

2) "We will have to make due with punishing individuals after the fact that hurt people while under the influence of mind-altering substances." I am utterly baffled as to how it is immoral to act in the interest of society. It is not immoral at all to prevent a drunk from entering a car, to prevent a person high on cocaine to wander the streets, preventing someone high on marijuana from buying a gun.

You are arguing it is immoral to prevent the drunk from drinking in the first place. In principle, I tend to agree with you. I think before this point can progress any further, it needs to be split to take into account different drugs. Cocaine affects the mind differently than alcohol - pretending to treat them the same is folly. There is also the fact that the side effects of some drugs like caffeine, alcohol, and marijuana (medicinally) are beneficial. The effects of cocaine and heroin are not.

When you have a greater moral good at hand (protection of society) I don't see how it can be achieved through immoral ends. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one.

3) You cannot escape using group values as the basis for laws! Morality and justice are BASED on group values! Muslims believe it moral and just to remove your hand for stealing... You cannot escape the use of group values to interpret your objective morality and justice. That is NOT a road to tyranny - the use of group values in making a decision is the road to DEMOCRACY.

1) No... I provide a result of the billions of dollars that have been spent.
2) You offered a rehab program as a solution for junkies that hit rock bottom - I'm simply adapting that to the junkies that are already in prison. Nobody's perfect... I'm not sure where that came from.
3) I think we agree here, yes...
4) Well most of your argument here got cut off I guess, but in a capitalist economy (and depending on the state) an employer can hire basically whoever the hell they want, whether or not they use drugs. Even if drugs were legal, I still doubt that many employers would hire users...

I thank you for another excellent debate! I have a feeling I'm on the losing side of this one, but I also have a feeling it's long enough that not many people will read it and vote based on the topic... In any event, I actually mostly agree with you on this one - my side is a tough one to defend, and you made me work to keep any inch of ground.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
no I meant your comment is too general for me to make any rebuttal to. You might as well just say "your argument sucks" because thats about as usefull to adding to our discourse...
Posted by mikelwallace 8 years ago
mikelwallace
ok rob let me be specific for you since you couldnt decipher my complicated statement...DRUGS ARE IMMORAL...satisfied?
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
all this depends on the drug

pot is different that ectasy and LSD for example

as is heroin crack, and PCP

this is where the rub is tough

how about fentanyl and other legal drugs?

is every thing then legal WITH proper prescription?

what about those that want but the Doc sez NO?

It is easy to see legal pot- it is a plant after all- a weed no less

speed and crack and stuff like that are tougher to imagine being legit

of course, them being illegal is FAR WORSE- you have bad people getting rich and BAD DRUGS too!

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Solarman1969 8 years ago
Solarman1969
all thisn depends on the drug

pot is different that extasy and LSD for example

as is heroin crack, and PCP

this is where the rub is tough

how about fentanyl and other legal drugs?

is every thing legal WITH prescription?

It is easy to see legal pot- it is a plant after all- a weed no less

speed and stuff like that are tougher to imagine being legit

of course, them being illegal is FAR WORSE- you have bad people getting rich and BAD DRUGS too!

cheers

SOLARMAN
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
very good, mikel... don't say anything too specific. You'll be safer that way.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
yes, you have independent dealers. Legal ones, who must do their business by the books. This is the beginning of the process in which the gov't can actually take legitimate control over the distribution of the substances.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Ah - I think I get the point now, if that's what he indeed referred to. I'm not sure I would say the dealers are in business BECAUSE of the WoD, but it certainly drives the price up. I'm 99% sure you'd have independent dealers without the WoD - they'd simply be legal dealers... Like I said - I don't see Wal-Mart adding a drug aisle - lol
Posted by mikelwallace 8 years ago
mikelwallace
war on drugs...immoral? I think you have to be ON drugs to actually think that.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I think I understand his point, although I could be wrong. We are enriching in this way, on several levels.

1) drug dealers in the US are only in business because of the WoD, so we are in fact enriching them

2) foreign drug cartels are only in business because of the WoD, so we are in fact enriching them

3) corrupt drug warriors are only in business because of the WoD, and while we pay them $1B a week we are in fact enriching them

Are any of these hitting your point solarman?
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I look forward to fielding a debate from you inthe future... It will most likely be on your terms next time!
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 flor 8 years ago
flor
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 MarxistKid 8 years ago
MarxistKid
Rob1BillionJustCallMeTarzanTied
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