The Instigator
LDdebater2010
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AmbrahRenee7
Con (against)
Tied
0 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+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: 11/3/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,629 times Debate No: 13553
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

LDdebater2010

Pro

SOR: I affirm the resolution: Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice..

VALUE: Deontology. Which course of action will serve the greater good? Is a human being not a human being? When we incarcerate a human being due to use of illegal drugs, we are bascially throwing away a human being.

OBSERVATIONS: Drugs are medicines, which fall under the medical field. The use or abuse of drugs, either legal or illegal, is clearly a medical matter that should be handled by medical professionals, not the justice department.

Our Federal Government contains 3 branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Within the executive branch are 15 cabinets, 2 of which are the Department of Justice and the Department of Health & Human Services. Each serves a distinct purpose, independent of the other. I ask you judges, "When you have a toothache, do you call the dentist or the police department?"

CRITERION: Cost Benefit Analysis. The AFF will demonstrate that not only is treating drug abuse as a medical matter instead of a criminal matter the right thing thing to do, but also that it makes fiscal sense as well.

DEFINITIONS: I think although the wording of the NFL resolution is a bit enigmatic (illegal drugs notwithstanding), I feel that we both concur on the intent of the resolution and not get into a semantics battle.

C-1: Jail or rehab?
The approximate average cost to house a healthy prisoner is $32,000 per year. Inmates that require services can be much more expensive. According to NPR, many states are running into the quagmire of overcrowded prisons and the rising cost of housing prisoners. They are struggling to pay for this. Further, drug abusers and other non-violent criminals are taking up space that is needed for the more hardened criminals. They are between a rock and a hard place because of victim's rights.

A more fiscally responsible action would be to go the medical route of rehab. Granted it costs approximately $35,000 for a 6 month stay, however compare that cost with the average prison sentence of 80 months, and we can clearly see that rehab is the way to go. I ask you judges, "Which serves the greater good?"

C-2: Productive citizen or wasted life?
When a person completes rehab, they have, in essence, a second chance at life. Many are grateful for the release of the burden that has held them prisoner fo rso long. A successful rehab case can go to work! A successful rehab case can spend money! A successful rehab case contributes to the GDP. What does a prisoner do in jail? Nothing that is fiscally productive. In fact, taxes pay for prisoners, millions of dollars are spent on housing prisoners who give nothing back financially. I ask you judges, "What is the greater good?"

C-3: Self Respect or Rotting Away?
What happens to inmates? They get mediocre services at best, and according to NPR, prisons are full of drugs. People sent to prison do not even get away from drugs. It can be likened to keeping a person down. Not only do they not get the quality help they need, they actually are put in a place where no on ereally cares what happens to them. People may say things like, "They are in jail, they are animals, they deserve this." Regardless, we are basically throwing them away. Many people who are drug abusers also suffer depression. This makes them even less effective in the real world. Further, when their sentence is up, what is likely to happen? We do not need a crystal ball to tell what will likely happen.

Many people who complete rehab not only go on to lead clean, happy, and productive lives. They also provide a positive testimonial to others who are still struggling with their addiction. People who have conquered addiction have a renewed sense of accomplishment. They have self respect and self confidence. Some statistics boast success rates of up to 80% on the first rehab stint. I ask you judges, which serves the greater good? I ask you judges, which is more fiscally responsible?"

Thank you.
AmbrahRenee7

Con

"Law enforcement plays an important role in the drug treatment court program. It is especially important in the beginning of the process because it often triggers treatment for people who need it. Most people do not volunteer for drug treatment. It is more often an outside motivator, like an arrest, that gets and keeps people in treatment. And it is important for judges to keep people in incarceration if treatment fails."

It's because I agree with the U.S. department of justice- drug enforcement agency that I must negate today's resolution.
Resolved: the abuse of illegal drugs ought be treated as a matter of public health, NOT criminal justice.

I'd first like clarify the resolution, the affirmative burden is to show why we should eliminate criminal justice from the solution to drugs, and the negative burden is to show why we should keep criminal justice as an option.

The highest value of the round is societal welfare defined as the well being of the whole society, a society is made up of multiple indivuals, therefore the well being of indivuals is a large contribution to the society's well being as well. The criterion used to best achieve societal welfare is that of cognitive dissonance defined as A psychological term denoting the mental state in which two or more incompatible or contradictory ideas an example would be people who enjoying smoking and knowing it to be unhealthy In this case it would drug abusers enjoying doing drugs, yet knowing its illegal. The motivator in changing the behavior would be criminal justice; according to the theory when someone is aware of their contradictory actions and beliefs they do what they can to change it.

My first contention is that you can not eliminate the option of criminal justice because of all those that it helps.

Sub A. Socially Drug offenders are hazardous and dangerous to the safety and wellbeing of the society. When on drugs senses are either heightened or slowed. A 1991 survey of federal and state prisons found that drug offenders, burglars and robbers in state prisons were the most likely to report being under the influence of drugs while committing crimes. Trafficing in illicit drugs is often associated with crimes according to the us institution on drug abuse.

Indivually criminal justice is the best option. According to the national survey on drug use and health 23 million people aged 12 or older need treatment for drug abuse, 20.8 million of them didn't get it. Criminal justice provides forced treatment which in most cases are what people need. When in criminal justice graduates are held accountable for sticking with the program unlike other purely voluntary treatment programs. The addict who has a physical need for drugs cant simply quit treatment when ever he or she feels like it, us department on drugs.

Second contention is that criminal justice is a means of realization by the rules that when placed in custody and dealt with on a criminal justice basis scares the person, and makes them consider there moral worth and there place in society. The options that the criminal justice uses normally are imprisonment fines and cimmunity service and probation. When a human being is arrested for anything it conflicts with there appearance to themselves and others.
Debate Round No. 1
LDdebater2010

Pro

LDdebater2010 forfeited this round.
AmbrahRenee7

Con

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LDdebater2010

Pro

LDdebater2010 forfeited this round.
AmbrahRenee7

Con

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
LDdebater2010

Pro

LDdebater2010 forfeited this round.
AmbrahRenee7

Con

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LDdebater2010

Pro

LDdebater2010 forfeited this round.
AmbrahRenee7

Con

AmbrahRenee7 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by tbtaylor 6 years ago
tbtaylor
LDdebater2010 you do realize that you cant base your whole case on the United States government right?? Because its not just talking about us, it is talking about everywhere. In your case you stated in our federal government we have......
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
LDdebater2010AmbrahRenee7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)