The Instigator
Pastafarian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BillNyeTheUSSpy
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The legalization of LSD

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,861 times Debate No: 15563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Pastafarian

Pro

Hello Michael, I would like to challenge you to the debate of the legalization of LSD

Round 1: introduction
Round 2: Reasons
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Conclusion

Good luck mate.
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Con

Thanks for inviting me to this debate! Since this is my first online debate, I might have a few errors, but try to ignore them for me.

I think that its really interesting that you choose a topic like LSD... I have never heard of it and just researched it. I think I have a good idea of what it does now.

Good luck Vincent!
Debate Round No. 1
Pastafarian

Pro

Definitions
LSD : Pharmacology . a crystalline solid, C 20 H 25 N 3 O, the diethyl amide of lysergic acid, a powerful psychedelic drug that produces temporary hallucinations and a schizophrenic psychotic state. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Legalize: to make legal; authorize http://dictionary.reference.com...


OVERVIEW
LSD was a drug well known for its psychological effects which can include altered thinking processes, closed and open eye visuals, synaesthesia, an altered sense of time and spiritual experiences, as well as for its key role in 1960s counterculture. LSD was able to let people think more creatively.

EVIDENCE 1: LSD is useful for psychotherapy and alcoholism.
LSD in the 1960s was commonly used as psychotherapy.. It was believed that it would help patients unblock repressed subconscious material via other psychotherapeutic methods. Some studies in the 1950s show that LSD has a 50% success rate for alcoholics not being an alcoholic—better than Alcoholic Anonymous at a 10% success rate.

EVIDENCE 2: LSD can cure headaches

“ It can be used to cure migraines and cluster headaches, it has a 45% success rate in curing alcoholism versus therapy's 12%, and therapists have had success in giving it to mental patients and taking it themselves to better understand schizophrenia.”Researchers believe that LSD can be used for curing headaches—something that 1 in 6 Americans have. It was proven that LSD can prevent future cluster headaches from occurring again. “A 2006 study by McLean researchers interviewed 53 cluster-headache sufferers who treated themselves with either LSD or psilocybin, finding that a majority of the users of either drug reported beneficial effects”

EVIDENCE 3: It can release pain
As seen on the TV show “House”—the painkiller, Vicodin, is a highly addictive drug. However LSD, can be a great substitute because it also alleviates pain. “Even at low (sub-psychedelic) dosages, it was found to be at least as effective as traditional opiates, while being much longer lasting in pain reduction (lasting as long as a week after peak effects had subsided)” Eric Kast—the person who was studying about this reported that patients weren’t feeling less pain—but rather being less distressed by pain.
SOURCES
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...



Good luck mate.
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Con

Nice job on your argument Vincent.

I will start with my reasons for why LSD should not be legalized.

1) LSD causes major damage to the user's emotions.

People who reacted to LSD badly were often damaged emotionally. "In their everyday life... Constantly concerned about maintaining perfect control over their feelings and behavior. They are afraid of temporary or permanent unleashing of instinctual energies, especially those of a sexual or aggressive nature, and of involuntary emotional outbursts. There is frequent preoccupation with the issue of loss of control and fear of social embarrassment, blunder and public scandal resulting from the ensuing behavior." (LSD Psychotherapy, Stanislav Grof (Hunter House, 1980) p. 55)


2) The effects of LSD are unpredictable.

Short Term Effects:
Users of LSD may feel mood swings, alters the sense of time, and "cross over" different senses, such as hearing colors of seeing sounds. These changes frighten and cause panic in the users. Some LSD users experience severe, terrifying thoughts and feelings of despair, or fear of insanity and death.

Long Term Effects:
LSD also makes users experience flashbacks. They will occur without warning within a few days, or even more than a year after the use of LSD. In some individuals, the flashbacks can persist and cause significant distress or impairment in social or occupational functioning, a condition known as hallucinogen-induced persisting perceptual disorder (HPPD).

3) People can abuse this drug dangerously.

Just 30 micrograms for a dose of LSD can cause effects for to 6-12 hours. In the 1960s and 1970s, people would take 100 to more than 200 micrograms. If we legalized LSD, overdoses of this would happen. When overdoses are used, fatal accidents can occur from convulsions, coma, heart/lung failure, or ruptured blood vessels in the brain.

Sources:
2) http://www.nida.nih.gov...
2) http://www.drugfree.org...
3)http://www.drug-rehabcenter.com...



Now I will provide counter arguments to my opponent's reasons.

EVIDENCE 1: LSD is useful for psychotherapy and alcoholism.

I think my opponent used wikipedia for this evidence. I looked at it, here's the entire part.

"Some studies in the 1950s that used LSD to treat alcoholism professed a 50% success rate, five times higher than estimates near 10% for Alcoholics Anonymous. A 1998 review was inconclusive."

This doesn't tell us who the study was administered to. Even if LSD was successful, it has not cured the damage caused by alcoholism. This also results in gaining the effects caused by LSD, the flashbacks, etc.

EVIDENCE 2: LSD can cure headaches

My opponent uses a quote saying:

“ It can be used to cure migraines and cluster headaches, it has a 45% success rate in curing alcoholism versus therapy's 12%, and therapists have had success in giving it to mental patients and taking it themselves to better understand schizophrenia.”

In the previous quote from evidence 1, my opponent said that LSD had a 50% success rate of curing alcoholism.

My opponent uses another quote saying:

“A 2006 study by McLean researchers interviewed 53 cluster-headache sufferers who treated themselves with either LSD or psilocybin, finding that a majority of the users of either drug reported beneficial effects”

These statistics may not show the true results, since McLean only researched 53 people. Another thing is that the quote says that the cluster-headache sufferers treated themselves to either LSD or psilocybin. Therefore, we do not know if LSD or psilocybin was the cause of the beneficial effects.

EVIDENCE 3: It can release pain

My opponent says "Eric Kast—the person who was studying about this reported that patients weren’t feeling less pain—but rather being less distressed by pain."

My opponent basically just contradicted himself by saying "that patients weren't feeling less pain..."

Sorry for the long argument!!! I hope my following rounds will be less lengthy.
Debate Round No. 2
Pastafarian

Pro

Excellent Michael!

I will rebuttal in what Con had said.

Rebuttal 1: LSD causes major damage to the user’s emotions.

This argument can be the same about bullying. Bullying can damage emotionally to both adults and children. Something that will never happen with LSD—is for someone on LSD to kill one another, but bullying may. Take account of the Columbine High School Massacre in which two kids were bullied. The two kids opened fire in the school and injured/killed over 10 people—and then committed suicide. From this incident-- has bullying been illegal in all countries.. NO! The UK does not have any laws against bullying yet-- and bullying still happens resulting in suicide. In 1997, a young child named Kelly Yeomans overdosed off painkillers because of excessive bullying. I haven't heard of anyone commiting suicide from LSD from the sources I have read.

Rebuttal 2: The effects of LSD are unpredictable

Con had just contradicted itself.. If it’s unpredictable how would you know what will happen via overdosing from LSD, even though it’s unheard of so far. People who served in the Vietnam war have PTSD—known as Post Trauma Stress Disorder. PTSD can cause flashbacks — vivid, disturbing memories of the trauma — as well as sleep problems, nightmares and panic attacks. Should serving the war be illegal? PTSD also makes users experience flashbacks—flashbacks in which contain you being in the war with disturbing events.. It’s also said that PTSD makes it hard for them to tell the difference between a peaceful civilian and an enemy combatant.

Rebuttal 3: People can abuse this drug dangerously

I thank you for bringing up this claim.. As con had said quote, “If we legalized LSD, overdoses of this would happen..” That may be true, but then should we also make sleeping pills illegal? On April 12, 1987, Mike Von Erich—a famous professional wrestler left a suicide note for his family, then went to Lake Dallas, where he overdosed on the sleeping pill Placidyl and alcohol. This man overdosed via Placidyl—a well known sleeping pill. Other well known celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe—or William Cuppy have died via sleeping pills.. Have they outlawed sleeping pills? No they have not which brings me to the next rebuttal.

LSD is first of all non-addictive. It estimates that a lethal overdose would have to be between 200 mg to 1000 mg which is unheard of in the medical books so far. Currently LSD is not known to cause brain damage—so I don’t know where Con came up with that conclusion in his 3rd argument. Until he shows me and the audience the source— it will be considered invalid..

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...



In conclusion, Con had stated good arguments—but part of it contradicts itself—and the other part is invalid—until he provides sources in his next round.

Once again—I thank you for this amazing debate—for I have not have a good debate since ever.

You can only rebuttal MICHAEL :)
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Con

Since my opponent has not responded to my counter-arguements, the audience and I will assume that:
a. LSD is NOT useful for psycho therapy and alcoholism.
b. LSD canNOT cure headaches.
c. LSD canNOT release pain.

Now I will respond to the pro's rebuttals.

Rubuttal 1: LSD causes major damage to the user's emotions.
Debate Round No. 3
Pastafarian

Pro

Since my opponent also did not respond to my counter-arguments-- we can also assume what he said also in the previous round...

People canNOT abuse this drug dangerously.
The effects of LSD are PREDICTABLE
LSD doesn't cause major damage to the user's emotions

BillNyeTheUsSpy is a great opponent and I hope I will debate with you again. LSD should be legalized because of the fact it releases pain, cures headaches-- and can prevent you from being an alcoholic..

What BillNyeTheUsSpy had said was that the effects are unpredictable, it causes major damage, and people can abuse this drug dangerously..

I ask the audience-- how can the effects be unpredictable if Con just stated what happens from LSD..
Another question, how can you abuse this drug dangerously when it's virtually impossible to overdose from LSD.
Last question why isn't enlisting into the army illegal, if enlisting into the army might get you PTSD?

For him not answering any of my rebuttals-- I urge the audience to vote Pro..

In conclusion, BillNyetheUsSpy-- your a great opponent and I hope I will debate with you again on some other topic in which you choose.


May the winner win :)
BillNyeTheUSSpy

Con

Sorry for round 3, audience. I accidentally posted an incomplete argument!!!

I'll respond to my opponent's rebuttals this time. Hopefully I wont post an incomplete one again!

Again, my opponent hasn't responded to my counter-arguments in the round 2, so we will assume again that:
a. LSD is NOT useful for psycho therapy and alcoholism.
b. LSD canNOT cure headaches.
c. LSD canNOT release pain.

Rebuttal 1: LSD causes major damage to the user's emotions.

What you say is true in most places, but you focus on the amount of deaths that happen from bullying. At the end, you say "I haven't heard of anyone committing suicide from LSD from the sources I have read." In one of your sources in round 2, it quotes "... Most LSD deaths are a result of behavioral toxicity." [1] and also "LSD may temporarily impair the ability to make sensible judgments and understand common dangers, thus making the user more susceptible to accidents and personal injury and cause signs of organic brain damage-impaired memory and attention span, mental confusion or difficulty with abstract thinking." [1]

To make these quotes more clear to the audience and my opponent, these say that most LSD deaths are a result of behavioral toxicity. Behavioral toxicity is basically a behavior change in an individual. Also, from the behavioral toxicity, it causes the user to be unaware of the dangers around him, such as a busy street, and may cause death or serious injury. Also, look back at reason 2 from round 2. The short term effects describe the behavioral toxicity that happens from LSD.

Rebuttal 2: The effects of LSD are unpredictable.

I have not contradicted myself. Even though I have listed the effects from LSD, I have said "Users of LSD MAY feel mood swings...", "In SOME individuals..." The effects are not always constant and you may not be prepared for them.

Rebuttal 3: People can abuse this drug dangerously.

I think that this was my opponent's strongest rebuttal. Nice job Vincent!

"... Should we also make sleeping pills illegal? On April 12, 1987, Mike Von Erich—a famous professional wrestler left a suicide note for his family, then went to Lake Dallas, where he overdosed on the sleeping pill Placidyl and alcohol." Why haven't sleeping pills been illegalized? If you were in Mike's case, wanting to suicide, there are so many options. You could hang yourself (Should rope be illegalized?), or you could stab yourself with a knife in the kitchen (Should knives be illegalized?). Are you saying that we should illegalize everything that can be used as a suicide weapon?

You say that "It estimates that a lethal overdose would have to be between 200 mg to 1000 mg which is unheard of in the medical books so far." The medical books aren't talking about the doses taken in the streets, high schools, or colleges! You can't claim that nobody has taking a dose of 200 mg or higher. In one of your sources in round 2 again, it says that "Typical doses in the 1960s ranged from 200 to 1000 �g while street samples of the 1970s contained 30 to 300 �g." [1] This proves that the medical books dont show every dose that people take on, for example, the streets.
And responding to what you say "Currently LSD is not known to cause brain damage—so I don't know where Con came up with that conclusion in his 3rd argument." Obviously getting a lethal dosage can not only hurt your brain, but make it stop all together.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Audience- What is said in rounds 2, 3, and 4 tell us that:
a. LSD causes major damage to the user's emotions.
b. The effects of LSD are unpredictable.
c. People can abuse this drug dangerously.
d. LSD is not useful for psycho therapy and alcoholism.
e. LSD cannot cure headaches.
f. LSD cannot release pain.

Do these reasons tell you that LSD should be legalized or illegalized? I urge you to vote for Con on this debate because my opponent hasn't responded to my reasons in round 2, and I responded to everything that the Pro argued against me.

In conclusion, Pastafarian- you are a great opponent too! I really enjoyed debating with you and I hope we can do more debates like these. However, I will remember to not accidentally post my arguments incomplete next time!!!

Thank you for your patience in reading all of this audience! I know that this was a long debate (maybe this is normal size? Again, this is my first debate!)!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BillNyeTheUSSpy 6 years ago
BillNyeTheUSSpy
Lol Laiseez... Looks like I need to revise my arguments MUCH more carefully...
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
"If we legalized LSD, overdoses of this would happen. When overdoses are used, fatal accidents can occur from convulsions, coma, heart/lung failure, or ruptured blood vessels in the brain."
lol
Posted by BillNyeTheUSSpy 6 years ago
BillNyeTheUSSpy
I accidently posted my response for round 3 on accident!!! I wasnt done yet... D:
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
7 Points per vote.
Posted by Pastafarian 6 years ago
Pastafarian
Ahh bollocks I forgot to say LSD is not addictive..
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by nerdykiller 5 years ago
nerdykiller
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an incomplete argument for round 3, but though out the debate, pretty much dominated every argument.
Vote Placed by lliwill 6 years ago
lliwill
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Not the greatest debate, but a good topic
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 6 years ago
petersaysstuff
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Con because Pro did minimal work to defend his arguments whilst Con defended his as well as destroy Pro's.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better agruments. And After looking through his sources I actually realised his were more on topic with the debate. Both are great deabters ,though.
Vote Placed by Adamant1 6 years ago
Adamant1
PastafarianBillNyeTheUSSpyTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments. Pro frequently used wikipedia, these are not considered reliable.