The Instigator
SuperCapitalist
Pro (for)
Losing
59 Points
The Contender
LaissezFaire
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 8/22/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 26,388 times Debate No: 12803
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (92)
Votes (19)

 

SuperCapitalist

Pro

"…the solution lies in prevention, which in turn is largely a matter of education and enforcement, which aims at keeping drug pushers away from children and teenagers."

It's because I agree with the DEA that I affirm the resolution, "RESOLVED: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice."

Definitions:
Public Health: The Southcentral foundation (http://www.scf.cc...) an Alaskan native owned healthcare organization) defines public health as, "Discusses and acts on issues that affect the general health of a community. Often involves issues such as water safety, sanitation, immunizations, housing, infectious diseases and illness prevention."

Value: Societal Welfare
The resolution frames the area of concern in the round, which is societal welfare. This is because society suffers when its members have poor health outcomes, such as the negative consequences associated with drug use.

Criterion: Consequentialism
Consequentialism is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences." This means the only way we can determine the morality or justification of any act is through a Consequentialist framework.
The resolution frames the area of concern for the round, being that of looking at the consequences, positive or negative, of both the criminal justice system and the public health approach when deciding how to treat the matter of abuse of illegal drugs. Thus, we default to the Criterion of consequentialism, because we must look at the harms and benefits associated with these two systems.
Observation: The resolution does not imply any specific actor because the resolution is used in a passive voice. In any statement using a passive voice, the subject receives the action. This means the Affirmative is not shackled by the massive burden of defending a specific actor.

Contention 1: The public health approach prevents harmful consequences by preventing drug abuse.
•Subpoint A: The public health approach uses preventative measures to control and mitigate drug use.
NIDA '09
... prevention research has led to improved understanding of addiction and has to build upon solid epidemiological findings and new insights from genetics and neuroscience. Findings have revealed the myriad contributors to addiction… research strives to identify the factors that put people at risk of drug abuse or protect them from it. Results lead to more effective strategies to prevent people from ever using drugs in the first place.
•Subpoint B: The public health approach minimizes the spread of HIV/AIDS through drug use.
NIDA '09
Drug abuse continues to be a major vector for the spread of HIV/AIDS through its connection with other risky behaviors… research advances the less acknowledged link between drug abuse… and HIV transmission. This highlights the… plan to continue to support… the most effective HIV risk-reduction interventions for different populations… This includes seeking out the best ways to incorporate HIV education, testing, counseling, and referral and supporting research to identify and overcome stigma and HIV and drug abuse. NIDA also sponsors research to learn more about the multiple interactions that occur with neurological complications of HIV, substance abuse, other comorbid disorders. This knowledge can inform the development of more responsive interventions.
•Subpoint C: The public health approach targets the underlying causes of drug use with preventative measures.
NIDA '09
Given the complex interactions of biological, social, environmental, and developmental factors… NIDA acknowledges the need to take a "whole systems" approach... well positioned to capitalize on recent discoveries that have uncovered an expanded range of… key contributors to addiction and relapse… comprehensive research will push effective… approaches that consider genetic variation, comorbid and the addicted person's changing needs over time… to counteract drug-induced changes in the brain…
Contention 2: The criminal justice system just covers up the problem of criminal behavior, without actually fixing it.
•Subpoint A: Increased rates of incarceration only leads to a vicious, vacuous circle of committing crimes. The criminal justice system ignores the factors that account for recidivism.
van Dam 2005
after their release from their juvenile detention center, a sample of adolescent male offenders… was interviewed on their living circumstances. Occurrence and severity of recidivism were measured by self-report and official criminal records. Cluster analyses revealed that highest recidivism rates were found in a type with a high amount of risk factors, a low amount of protective factors… The least severe recidivists were characterized by low amounts of risk, high amounts of protective factors… Regression analysis reveals that occurrence of self-report recidivism is strongly predicted by… the amount of risk factors. It is concluded that… environmental factors are important in explaining recidivism…
•Subpoint B: Increased rates of incarceration leads to overcrowding in prisons.
Haney 2008
... there is little reason to doubt the empirical consensus that crowding
significantly worsens the quality of institutional life and increases the destructive potential of imprisonment… we know prison overcrowding increases negative affect among prisoners, elevates their blood pressure, and leads to greater numbers of prisoner illness complaints… exposure to "long-term, intense, inescapable crowding" of the sort that… characterizes many prison environments results in high levels of stress that "can lead to physical and psychological impairment."… overcrowding has been associated with higher rates of disciplinary infractions… one study concluded that in prisons "where crowded conditions are chronic rather than temporary… there is a clear association between restrictions on personal space and the occurrence of disciplinary violations."
LaissezFaire

Con

First, I would like to point out that I am not arguing that drugs should be a matter of criminal justice. In the comments section, my opponent agreed to debate me about whether or not drugs should be legalized. My position is that the production, sale, possession, and use of illegal recreational drugs should be legal for adults. I will not be responding to the points my opponent made in the first round because they could be used to support both of our positions.

If drugs were legal, gangs in US inner cities would lose their main source of revenue. Latin American drug cartels currently killing tens of thousands and destabilizing governments would lose their source of income and dissolve. The Taliban and other terrorist groups would lose their main source of income. But what about increased drug use? Wouldn't an increase in drug users cause an increase in crime? No. In fact, crime among drug users would probably decrease. There would be an increase in drug users, yes. But where would these new drug users come from? The new users would have to come from the group of people that respected the law too much to use drugs while they were illegal. Those people are unlikely to become criminals. In addition, alcohol (Not meth, not PCP, not heroin, not crack—just alcohol) is the only drug that has been shown to cause aggression. [1] Violent crime committed by drug users is generally the result of people who were violent anyway. But what about addicts stealing to support their habit? If drugs were legalized, the price would fall to a small fraction of the black market price. Marijuana, for example, is predicted to fall by as much as 80% if Proposition 19 passes in California. [2] Desperate addicts would need less money to support their habit, so they wouldn't need to steal nearly as much.

[1] http://www.druglibrary.org...

[2] http://www.rand.org...

Not only does strong law enforcement cause crime, it also often hurts law-abiding people. Many innocent people become victims of corrupt DEA agents or police officers in the drug war. Particularly dangerous to every private citizen are asset forfeiture laws, (police can seize anything they believe is connected with any crime, without a trial or hearing. Innocence of the crime is usually irrelevant.), as the following example illustrates:
"The owner of a $5 million California ranch refused to negotiate with officials who wanted to merge the property into a park system. Subsequently a search warrant was obtained for a drug squad raid on the rancher's home. When applying for the warrant, police said an informant had reported thousands of marijuana plants on the property. Police did not tell the judge they were skeptical of the informant's credibility. In the application, one officer swore to what he was told by another officer, but the other officer's statement was false (by using this technique neither officer could be accused of perjury). Nor was the judge told that more than one secret warrantless search had recently been made of the ranch land without finding a single marijuana plant. Maps handed to all members of the strike team included handwritten notations saying '200 acres' and '80 acres sold for $800,000 in 1991 in same area.'" When the drug squad burst into the ranch couple's home, the wife started screaming, 'Don't shoot me! Don't kill me!' as team members manhandled her. The commotion apparently roused her sleeping husband who ran downstairs with a pistol. Squad members told him to lower the firearm, and as he obeyed they shot him to death. They ejected the woman from the house while she ran to her stricken husband. No marijuana was found in the house or anywhere on the 250 acres. The county prosecutor admitted the raid 'was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government.' Governmental desire to merge the ranch into parkland may explain the otherwise curious presence of U.S. Park Service agents in the drug raid team." [3]

[3] Miller, Richard Lawrence. Drug Warriors and Their Prey: from Police Power to Police State. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996. Print. 105-106.

But what about the public health dangers of the drugs themselves? Well, as my opponent's post shows, they are often caused not by the drugs, but by our treatment of drugs as a criminal offense (The spread of HIV through used needles, for example). But, yes, many drugs are dangerous. However, they are not nearly as life-destroying as most people assume. As an example, I will discuss heroin specifically below, and will also discuss any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention.

Heroin- This drug is said to be immensely pleasurable, supposedly many times more so than an orgasm, so good that users get addicted for life after one hit. Then, once addicted, get higher and higher doses to attempt to get back to the original high, ruining their life in the process. These claims are largely false. First, a heroin high is nowhere near as good as most believe. Researchers injecting heroin into test subjects found that the vast majority were indifferent to the feeling or disliked it. [4] The actual high is basically several hours of blocking out everything. Food, sex, jobs, friends, pain, frustrations, and everything else no longer matter. Generally, only a person that already had problems, someone that wanted to escape from reality, would have a compulsive craving for this feeling. But what about physical addiction, like how smokers have physical cravings for nicotine? Studies of users show that physical dependence does not develop easily. A user would have to inject pure, unadulterated heroin three times a day for two straight weeks to develop a level of dependence detectable by medical instruments. [5] With diluted street heroin, it is even harder to develop physical dependence. Another false claim is that once addicted, heroin users are addicts for life, because it is so hard to get off heroin. Most users have few problems with withdrawal; which, physically, is generally no worse than a bad cold, and over in a few days. [7] Of course, those are just the physical symptoms. Many addicts use heroin to escape their problems. Since those problems come back once the heroin wears off, often worse than they were before, addicts just use more heroin, creating a vicious cycle. These are the people that have tremendous difficulty getting off heroin; and this type of addict has more to do with the person than the drug. As for the effect of heroin use on one's life: When most people think of a heroin user, they think of a desperate addict living on the streets, stealing to pay for his habit. This image is not the typical heroin user. [8] In 1971, Washington DC police captain Gerald M. Caplan, said "more than 100 officers were taking heroin. How did we learn about them? Not because their performance was poor. . . We took urine specimens." A study of college student GPA's found no significant difference between users and non users. [9]

[4] Lasagna, L., John M. von Felsinger, Henry K. Beecher. "Drug-Induced Mood Changes in Man." Journal of the American Medical Association 157 (1955): 1113-1119.

[5] Kaplan, John. The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Public Policy. Studies in Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. 27.

[6] Scur, Edwin M. Narcotic Addiction in Britain and America: The Impact of Public Policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1962. 27.

[7] Platt, Jerome J., and Christina Labate. Heroin Addiction: Theory, Research, Treatment. Wiley Series on Personality Processes. A Wiley Interscience Publication. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976. 171.

[8] Blum Richard H., et al. Students and Drugs: College and High School Observations. The Jossey-Bass Behavioral Science Series and the Jossey-Bass Series in Higher Education (published jointly). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Debate Round No. 1
SuperCapitalist

Pro

I would like to make an observation on Topicality: the resolution states: "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice." Take note of the word "illegal." Obviously, any argument pertaining to legalization is strictly NON-TOPICAL. If my opponent needs my to cite a credible debate source agreeing with this, I have sources on hand.

NEXT: My opponent drops my whole case. Thus, I have fulfilled my burdens that the resolution dictates. Once the Affirmative has fulfilled those burdens, every judge MUST VOTE AFFIRMATIVE.

NEXT: My opponent claims to make these drugs legal only to adults. Does this mean 18 or 21? My opponent provides no age threshold, and if they provide one n the next speech it IS abusive. Also, he keeps drugs illegal for kids, meaning the "thrill" of doing drugs illegally is still there.

NEXT: My opponent cites gang revenue in U.S. cities. However, they do not take into account foreign gangs, like those in China. Any attempt my opponent makes to say his plan solves for all gangs is fallacious, specifically in the sense that he's committing a "Proof by Example" fallacy. Also, who is to say that gangs will not find alternate sources of revenue? According to The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, (http://www.thehindu.com...) a gang in India was transporting red sanders logs to fund themselves. TURN: The accessibility of drugs will go up with legalization, thus increasing gang activity and gang violence, leading to turf wars between gangs. Also, my opponent doesn't provide a clear way in which legalization leads to decreased revenue for gangs and the Taliban. The Taliban could still sell drugs for money. Also, crime would increase. It is a widely accepted fact that drug use directly correlates with risky behavior such as crime. Next; my opponent claims that those who were too scared of the law to do drugs will do drugs without engaging in criminal behavior. This is simply untrue. First, my opponent commits another "Proof by Example" fallacy by assuming that all (currently) law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. This is untrue. Thus, not everybody will refrain from criminal behavior. Even then, an increase in drug abusers would lead to an increase in deaths/ physical harms. The U.S. Department of Justice had this to say, "And when cocaine is combined with marijuana, it can be deadly. According to a study in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, an increase in heart rate due to cocaine was markedly enhanced if preceded by smoking marijuana. The dual use creates greater risk of overdose and more severe cardiovascular effects from the cocaine. An article in Schizophrenia Research found that up to 60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs..." This shows that cocaine alone can put people at risk, but when complimented with marijuana, it is extremely dangerous. Also, a graph shown in the article titled "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald shows that when Portugal decriminalized drug use, cannabis, multidrug, cocaine, and heroin use all significantly increased. If drug use spiked so sharply in this decriminalized country, imagine the increase in drug use and drug-associated harms in a world in which we legalize drugs. Legalization is certainly self-defeating. Next; it doesn't matter that alcohol causes aggression. As stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, alcohol has a 10% addiction rate. Cocaine has a 75% addiction rate. This means more deaths are caused by drugs, and more risky behaviors are caused by drugs, as stated by my Subpoint B under my first Contention. Next; under my plan, there is no stealing of drugs, so I completely eliminate the harms that remain in your advocacy. Also, I want to make another point. TURN: In the Negative plan, the government is giving up a plan it has put an incredible amount of money into and lowers hegemony, making many question government legitimacy - thus drug use will go up because people sense weakness in their government.

Next, my opponent attacks the criminal justice system. I only use the criminal justice system to treat the drug abusers in the status quo, not future drug abusers. In the Affirmative advocacy, I have no option but to use the criminal justice system for treatment. My opponent does not claim any treatment programs whatsoever, and my treatment is better than my opponent's, which is... none. Although I am sorry for the man that was shot, I must point out my opponent commits an "Appeal to emotion" fallacy here. The man threatened the squad, and they, based on human instinct, shot. It's something called "fight or flight" syndrome. They chose, obviously, fight.
Next, my opponent claims that I state the harms associated with drugs have to do with our treatment of them. This is wrong. I state there are separate harms with treatment in the status quo. The harms caused by drug abuse are independent.
Next, drugs ARE life-destroying. Note that this next claim is not an appeal to emotion, just an argument. Almost a year ago, my friend was driving down the highway. He was sober in every way, and a cautious driver. Then, he was hit by a man who driving under the influence of cocaine. He was killed. That is life-destroying, and a true story.

Next, my opponent cites an article talking about how heroin is hard to get addicted to, and doesn't change performance. I will concede that heroin is difficult to get addicted to. That does not mean people don't get addicted often. I can personally tell you I know more than five heroin users. And before they did heroin, they got A's and B's in pretty much every class. Now, they do heroin. And they fail almost every class. I am aware there are outside factors, but I know these people very well, and I know that their environmental factors had no impact big enough to cause that severe drop in grades. Heroin will never affect everybody the same way, and you cannot expect it to. Thus, when using your example of the students and cops, you commit yet another "Proof by Example" fallacy.

Let me recount... So far I have found 4 fallacies in my opponent's case. You cannot, by any means, vote on a fallacious argument.

Also, I want to bring back the point of Topicality. Every single argument my opponent makes revolves around legalization. For one, I have already shown why legalization is a horrid idea. On top of that legalization is non-topical because of the wording of the resolution, "The abuse of illegal drugs..." Thus, non-topical arguments cannot be evaluated/voted upon. Thus, my opponent has no case or framework to stand upon. Also, my opponent provides no Value or Criterion. This forces him to accept mine. I have shown throughout my arguments that he cannot achieve my Value of societal welfare because he has negative impacts associated with consequentialism that outweigh any positive benefits, if he has any.

Due to theory in debate, I urge the Negative not to introduce new arguments in his next speech. If he does, it is extremely abusive.

Once again, I want to push the point that all of my opponent's arguments are non-topical, and he has no arguments to stand upon. This, by all standards, MUST be voted upon.
LaissezFaire

Con

Topicality- This doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Please refer to the first paragraph of my previous post, and the comments section.

"My opponent cites gang revenue in U.S. cities. However, they do not take into account foreign gangs, like those in China."
Well, it's true that I didn't specifically mention Chinese gangs. However, I did take foreign gangs into account. ("Latin American drug cartels currently killing tens of thousands and destabilizing governments would lose their source of income and dissolve. The Taliban and other terrorist groups would lose their main source of income.")
"Any attempt my opponent makes to say his plan solves for all gangs is fallacious, specifically in the sense that he's committing a "Proof by Example" fallacy. Also, who is to say that gangs will not find alternate sources of revenue? According to The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, a gang in India was transporting red sanders logs to fund themselves."
I wasn't aware that I said that my plan solves all gang problems. I said that gangs in U.S. inner cities would lose their main source of revenue, which is true. If the gangs lose the drug market, gang activity and thus gang violence decreases.

"Also, my opponent doesn't provide a clear way in which legalization leads to decreased revenue for gangs and the Taliban. The Taliban could still sell drugs for money."
Sell them to whom? If drugs were legal, they would be sold by legitimate businesses, like tobacco and alcohol. Legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban. For one, businessmen don't want to associate themselves with the Taliban. Two, opium could also be grown by legal businesses, who would be able to produce it more efficiently and cheaply than a terrorist group.

"Also, crime would increase. It is a widely accepted fact that drug use directly correlates with risky behavior such as crime."
All that this correlation means is that people who are willing to disregard the laws against hurting people are also willing to disregard the laws against drug use. It doesn't mean that drug use causes crime. Need proof? Refer to the link in my previous post (#1) where a Department of Justice report states that alcohol is the only drug that has been shown to cause aggression.

"Next; my opponent claims that those who were too scared of the law to do drugs will do drugs without engaging in criminal behavior. This is simply untrue. First, my opponent commits another "Proof by Example" fallacy by assuming that all (currently) law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. This is untrue. Thus, not everybody will refrain from criminal behavior."
I did not say that everyone that tried drugs only once they became legal would refrain from crime. I simply argued that those who respect the law now are likely to tend to continue to do so if drugs are legalized. As for my alleged "Proof by example" fallacy: I never said that all currently law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. (Although, technically, they ARE the same in their behavior regarding the law: they all obey it) In the part of my argument you are talking about, I clearly used the qualifier "unlikely."

"[dangers of combining marijuana and cocaine]"
Did I say that drugs were completely safe, and that people should combine them? This is completely irrelevant; since my argument about the safety of drugs was that they are safer than most believe, not that there are no risks.

"Also, a graph shown in the article titled "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald shows that when Portugal decriminalized drug use, cannabis, multidrug, cocaine, and heroin use all significantly increased. If drug use spiked so sharply in this decriminalized country, imagine the increase in drug use and drug-associated harms in a world in which we legalize drugs."
I'm glad you brought up Portugal; I had completely forgotten about that. That paper, here [2], clearly states that drug use DECREASED when Portugal decriminalized drugs. You misread it.

[1] http://www.cato.org...

"Next; it doesn't matter that alcohol causes aggression. As stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, alcohol has a 10% addiction rate. Cocaine has a 75% addiction rate. This means more deaths are caused by drugs, and more risky behaviors are caused by drugs, as stated by my Subpoint B under my first Contention."
The point of my statement about alcohol causing aggression was that all the other drugs DON'T cause aggression. And even if your un-cited claims about the relative addiction rates of alcohol and cocaine were accurate, they are irrelevant, since you didn't provide any evidence that this addiction would lead to more crime.

"Next; under my plan, there is no stealing of drugs, so I completely eliminate the harms that remain in your advocacy."
What? "No stealing of drugs"? This sentence makes no sense.

"TURN: In the Negative plan, the government is giving up a plan it has put an incredible amount of money into and lowers hegemony, making many question government legitimacy - thus drug use will go up because people sense weakness in their government."
My opponent failed to provide any evidence that someone questioning the government's legitimacy would lead to increased drug use, or even any reasoning supporting it besides "people sense weakness in their government."

"Although I am sorry for the man that was shot, I must point out my opponent commits an "Appeal to emotion" fallacy here. The man threatened the squad, and they, based on human instinct, shot. It's something called "fight or flight" syndrome. They chose, obviously, fight."
The point of that example is that under the current system, the police can do whatever they want, with no real consequences. This is not an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to morality and one's sense of justice. A system where the police can steal and kill with impunity is an immoral and unjust system.

"Next, drugs ARE life-destroying. Note that this next claim is not an appeal to emotion, just an argument. Almost a year ago, my friend was driving down the highway. He was sober in every way, and a cautious driver. Then, he was hit by a man who driving under the influence of cocaine. He was killed. That is life-destroying, and a true story."
First of all, that is clearly an appeal to emotion, and not at all an argument. Furthermore, it sounds like another one of those "proof by example" fallacies. Not only that, but my opponent fails to cite any evidence that cocaine impairs driving ability. And, finally, I never advocated legalizing drugged or drunk driving.

"Next, my opponent cites an article talking about how heroin is hard to get addicted to, and doesn't change performance. I will concede that heroin is difficult to get addicted to. That does not mean people don't get addicted often. I can personally tell you I know more than five heroin users. And before they did heroin, they got A's and B's in pretty much every class. Now, they do heroin. And they fail almost every class. I am aware there are outside factors, but I know these people very well, and I know that their environmental factors had no impact big enough to cause that severe drop in grades. Heroin will never affect everybody the same way, and you cannot expect it to. Thus, when using your example of the students and cops, you commit yet another "Proof by Example" fallacy."
First of all, I used anecdotes in addition to general studies about the effects of heroin on one's life, not instead of. "That does not mean that people don't get addicted often." I didn't say that people don't get addicted often. I said that their addiction and problems associated are the result of things other than the heroin, which you did not attempt to refute. Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent tried to refute one of my alleged "proof by example fallacies" with a personal anecdote, again.
Debate Round No. 2
SuperCapitalist

Pro

Topicality doesn't merit a rebuttal? Then why aren't we talking nuclear weapons? Because I guess arguments that don't in any way pertain to the resolution are completely fine. And if you're gonna cite the "Comments" section, I claim this to be completely abusive. You can't let others make your arguments for you. But I'll go along with it. I will post the emails of some people who agree with me... How about Neil Conrad, Aaron Timmons, Ben Lewis, Todd Liipfert, and Jake Nebel? Because I know they would tell you legalization is strictly non-topical. Do you know how I know? They told me.

NEXT: You talk about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels. That's great. But you fail to recognize all gangs, meaning you assume what works for one will work for all. Thus, you still commit the fallacy. And then you go on to say "gangs in U.S. inner cities..." And you, once again, fail to address gangs worldwide. And they lose their main source of revenue, and then they find a new one. This does not decrease gang violence. Acknowledge the turn I placed in my last speech saying that increased accessibility due to legalization increases drug violence.

NEXT: Who is to say legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban? The Iranian government certainly has no problem helping Hamas, so why wouldn't businesses support the Taliban? What if businesses did a backdoor deal? On your next argument, terrorists would be forced to sell their opium cheaper if businesses entered that market.

NEXT: My point was that drug use EMPIRICALLY increases risky behavior, such as crime and unprotected sex. I'm not saying drug use is the main or only cause of crime, but it is a contributor. Also, aggression isn't synonymous with crime. For example, breaking into a gas station at night when it's closed isn't aggressive towards a person because there isn't a person there. Also, is unprotected sex aggressive? No.

NEXT: Who truly respects every bit of the law? I love the criminal justice system, but personally I hate taxes. There are a few who respect every bit of the law, but if that's the only group of people who will respect the law after legalization, it's not worth it.

NEXT: You never say that drugs were completely safe, or that people should combine them. I concede that. But why would you push a program that isn't safe? It doesn't seem like you would be operating within any parameter of safety...

NEXT: I have looked at that graph multiple times. And I want every voter to look at page 38 of that book provided at the bottom of the book. And if you look closely... You can see that drug use increased! Seriously, people, go look at it. I will concede that multidrugs decreased somewhat after an initial RISE in use.

NEXT: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions (Seattle: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994) 43. There's your cite. Read up. I'll break this down. Addiction leads to more drug use by the addict. Drug use leads to impaired judgment, meaning more risky behavior. These risky behaviors can be things like committing crimes, unprotected sex, and drugged driving. There's your evidence.

NEXT: That sentence makes sense. What was I supposed to say, "Stealing of no drugs?" "No stealing of drugs" makes perfect sense.

NEXT: I apologize for not having evidence on every single thing out there. I honestly don't have time to cross apply my CX hegemony cards and my drug cards. But I'll justify it anyways. People sense weakness in the government, and they believe it's ok to do drugs because they think they won't be caught red-handed. That's the reasoning, and it leads to higher drug use, thus more harms. You may argue this won't matter because drugs will be legal, but drug use will still go up.

NEXT: And I am forced to ask, what do you propose we do? Get rid of the criminal justice system? I can tell from your picture and info you're an anarchist. But seriously, that's what you want? An unjust criminal justice system is better than none at all. I want all the voters to remember that.

NEXT: That is not an appeal to emotion. If you can say your argument wasn't one, than neither is mine. My argument only shows that drug-users sometimes drive drugged, and sometimes harm others. That's all. If I really wanted to make an appeal to emotion, I could have added details. And how is that a "Proof by Example" fallacy? I'm not saying all drug users drive drugged, or all drugged drivers kill. Thus, I'm not fallacious. Once again, I don't need to have evidence for everything. I don't have time to have evidence for everything. But here:
http://www.emsaonline.com...
http://www.contentnejmorg.zuom.info...
And you don't have to advocate it. It's something that comes along with drug use. Just like drunk driving.

NEXT: Wait, so heroin addiction is caused by something other than heroin? That's odd... I will concede environmental factors are what make the addicts do heroin, but the heroin itself is responsible for its results and addiction. Also, what's wrong with using personal anecdotes? I don't see any reason why they're wrong to use.

In summation, I want to point out that I have shown how drug use is harmful, and legalization only encourages drug use. I have defended the public health approach, and my opponent COMPLETELY DROPPED MY CASE. Any attempt to attack my case in the next speech is abusive. I have shown the negative effects associated with legalization, and successfully defended my position. You must vote Affirmative.
LaissezFaire

Con

"And if you're gonna cite the "Comments" section, I claim this to be completely abusive. You can't let others make your arguments for you. But I'll go along with it."
I wasn't letting others make my arguments for me. I was referring readers to your post, where you said that it was OK if I argued in favor of legalization.

"You talk about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels. That's great. But you fail to recognize all gangs, meaning you assume what works for one will work for all. Thus, you still commit the fallacy. And then you go on to say "gangs in U.S. inner cities..." And you, once again, fail to address gangs worldwide. And they lose their main source of revenue, and then they find a new one. This does not decrease gang violence. Acknowledge the turn I placed in my last speech saying that increased accessibility due to legalization increases drug violence."
Well, for one, I never said that the claims I made about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels applied to all gangs, all around the world. I said that it would take revenue from those specific gangs. They'll find a new source of revenue? So let me get this straight: Right now, these groups have some activity they could be doing that would earn them more revenue. However, they don't do that activity because. . . why exactly? What, do they want to keep an exactly even amount of revenue? They will only engage in these other profitable activities once their drug money is taken away? Furthermore, it's not like I'm the only one that thinks that legalization would hurt the Mexican drug cartels. Mexico's ex-president Vincente Fox, as well as President Calderon, are both currently advocating legalization of drugs as a solution to Mexico's violence.

"Who is to say legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban? The Iranian government certainly has no problem helping Hamas, so why wouldn't businesses support the Taliban? What if businesses did a backdoor deal? On your next argument, terrorists would be forced to sell their opium cheaper if businesses entered that market."
You're comparing the Iranian government to legitimate Western business owners? Of course Iran helps Hamas attack Israel; they share the common interest of wanting Israel destroyed. How many Western business owners want to help the Taliban? Even if they did, why would they want to deal with dangerous terrorists, and the expense of shipping the opium all the way from Afghanistan? And, even if the business owners were to deal with the Taliban, you admit that the Taliban would have to sell for far lower prices. This supports my claim that legalization would take revenue from the Taliban.

"My point was that drug use EMPIRICALLY increases risky behavior, such as crime and unprotected sex. I'm not saying drug use is the main or only cause of crime, but it is a contributor. Also, aggression isn't synonymous with crime. For example, breaking into a gas station at night when it's closed isn't aggressive towards a person because there isn't a person there. Also, is unprotected sex aggressive? No."
Yes, actually, breaking into a gas station at night is aggression, even if no one is there. It may not be violent, but it is still an act of aggression. And where is your evidence that drug related dangers would increase with legalization? For example, in Portugal "drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically" after decriminalization. [1]

[1] http://www.cato.org...

"You never say that drugs were completely safe, or that people should combine them. I concede that. But why would you push a program that isn't safe? It doesn't seem like you would be operating within any parameter of safety."
Because, as I said before, we are safer with drugs legalized. As Portugal shows, drugs users themselves are safer without criminalization, and the rest of us are safer from the gangs and cartels with legalization.

"I have looked at that graph multiple times. And I want every voter to look at page 38 of that book provided at the bottom of the book. And if you look closely... You can see that drug use increased! Seriously, people, go look at it. I will concede that multidrugs decreased somewhat after an initial RISE in use."
Page 38 has no graph on it, so I have no idea which graph you are talking about. But the author himself states that "Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although post-decriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically."

"And I am forced to ask, what do you propose we do? Get rid of the criminal justice system? I can tell from your picture and info you're an anarchist. But seriously, that's what you want? An unjust criminal justice system is better than none at all. I want all the voters to remember that."
I propose that we get rid of THIS criminal justice system, and replace it with a just one. This is an entirely different topic irrelevant to this debate, but, if readers are interested in how law and order could work without government, I highly suggest this: http://mises.org... (the ‘Police, Law, and the Courts' chapter specifically. Although, the rest of the book is great too.)

"That is not an appeal to emotion. If you can say your argument wasn't one, than neither is mine. My argument only shows that drug-users sometimes drive drugged, and sometimes harm others. That's all. If I really wanted to make an appeal to emotion, I could have added details. And how is that a "Proof by Example" fallacy? I'm not saying all drug users drive drugged, or all drugged drivers kill. Thus, I'm not fallacious. Once again, I don't need to have evidence for everything. I don't have time to have evidence for everything. And you don't have to advocate it. It's something that comes along with drug use. Just like drunk driving."
It's interesting that you mention drunk driving. I assume that you don't advocate the reinstatement of alcohol prohibition to solve that problem, do you?

"Wait, so heroin addiction is caused by something other than heroin? That's odd... I will concede environmental factors are what make the addicts do heroin, but the heroin itself is responsible for its results and addiction. Also, what's wrong with using personal anecdotes? I don't see any reason why they're wrong to use."
You have no evidence that heroin itself is responsible for its negative consequences. If you admit that environmental factors are what make addicts do heroin, then why is it so hard to believe that those same factors cause their other problems?
Debate Round No. 3
92 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SuperCapitalist 6 years ago
SuperCapitalist
Yeah, LaissezFaire explained it very well. Basically, if it has positive impacts, it's moral, and vice-versa. Another way to use it in a round is to show that a consequentialist framework is a prerequisite to any moral framework.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
With conseqentialism, the morality of actions does not determine the advantages and disadvantages--it's the other way around. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then it is good, if they don't, then it is not. It's also often explained as a policy of "maximizing net happiness."
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
*I meant to ask how would morality of actions determine the adv and disads
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
Yeah, but I would the morality of actions determine the advantages and disadvantages. An action may be considered immoral, but there could still be advantages and disadvantages associated with the action.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
Essentially the same thing as utilitarianism, if you've heard of that.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
What I believe he meant was that a policy that leads to good consequences is morally right, and a policy that leads to bad consequences are morally wrong. At least that's what consequentialism generally means.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
@LaissezFaire

I do Lincoln-Douglas debate, thats how
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
@SuperCapitalist
You define your criterion Consequentialism as "whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences". So basically are you saying that the results of public health or criminal justice would determine which action is more moral and therefore which action should be taken? Also could you explain how the morality of an action would determine the advantages and disadvantages of the said action?

Sorry if I come across as ignorant, but I was just a bit confused on your point here.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
How do people keep finding this debate? It's nowhere near the front page of the 'Debates' tab at the top of the site.
Posted by 146190 6 years ago
146190
@LDbetch

The funny thing is that this "amazing" block of yours isn't even yours. Its copied word for word from http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguemtns were aginst crime nto drug use
Vote Placed by JpoteetDebateNN 6 years ago
JpoteetDebateNN
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Brooklyn1223 6 years ago
Brooklyn1223
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 LDdebater 6 years ago
LDdebater
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 marvinlibra44 6 years ago
marvinlibra44
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by President_Rachel 6 years ago
President_Rachel
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 Erick 6 years ago
Erick
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 xXCorpseXx 6 years ago
xXCorpseXx
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 Sieben 6 years ago
Sieben
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
SuperCapitalistLaissezFaireTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06