The Instigator
McCool
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TheSpoonyRealist
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TheSpoonyRealist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 67941
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

McCool

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Present Case i.e. no rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion

I'd like to make it obvious I'm for the legalization and use of drugs (However I think heroin and meth should still be illegal) and my opponent is against it.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
McCool

Pro

Thank you for accepting, good luck. Resources are not required unless using a statistic.
1) I believe there should be less people in jail for use of drugs, as it is their own choice and sending them to jail for it uses up valuable tax dollars and space needed for more serious offenders.
2) I believe if you take away meth and heroin, the drugs that are pure poison, there's no need to worry about death from using drugs like ecstasy that are cut with meth, if the government were to create and sell the drugs they could make a higher amount of money and insure the safety of the people who use them. If they had a dosage level that would be maximum amount labeled around the country people would not overdose unless they didn't listen to the warnings.
3) If one was to use the drugs they'd have to be a certain age, and schools would still advertise the dangers of drugs and just because they're legal (Like alcohol) doesn't mean they're ok or good.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

I would like to swiftly counter each one of my opponent's arguments in turn.

1) Though tax dollars are being spent, I would like to counter the fact that drug offenders are taking up space that could be used for more serious offenders. I would simply like to state that this is false, and unless my opponent can prove that the courts are not placing more serious criminals in prison because there is no room due to all the drug offenders, my opponent's argument is completely unfounded.

Furthermore let me make mention of the failures of other places that have legalized drugs. In Amsterdam, a place seen as a haven for drug users, has 7000 addicts, about 20 percent of which are foreigners. These same addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime within the city. A legalization experiment in Switzerland failed when it resulted in a higher rate of other crimes, violence, and health costs. In the late 1800s, opium was legal in China leading to 9,000,000 becoming addicted to the drug. The idea that drugs should be legalized because it is simply a choice, has shown to be detrimental to the way these previous societies functioned. Why repeat their mistakes? [1]

2) My opponent claims that by making only meth and heroin illegal, drug related deaths will go away. However, my opponent is forgetting one important fact. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that people will not use it. After all, it is illegal now and it still the cause of thousands of deaths per year. This is of course, not counting the hundreds of people dying of cocaine and other drugs daily. In fact "In the United States, cocaine deaths are implicated in 10 out of every 1000 deaths in hospital emergency unit"[2] My opponent either did not know this statistic or willfully ignored it, but either way this also debunks his theory that there would be "no need to worry about death from drugs".

3) This does not further my opponent's argument that drugs should be legalized in the slightest. It is simply a statement admitting that there are dangers of drugs and that they are currently spoken about in school.

Now, I need only prove that one drug need be made illegal to fulfill my burden of proof. I would like to offer up cocaine as an example of one such drug as well as a drug known as krokodil. It's a drug more addictive than heroin, causes the average addict to have a lifespan of about two years after addiction, is cheaper and easier to make than heroin, has been ravishing Russia for some time now, and causes untold devastation on the body, including but not limited to, causing skin to become infected, scaly, and dry, blood vessels around the infected area bursting and the skin starting to die. [3]

Now with effects worse than heroin, and this drug being easier to make, what argument does my opponent have to present in order to justify the legalization of such a drug. Let me remind you that my opponent thought heroine and meth to be pure poison and thus should not be legalized for that reason. If my opponent concedes that krokodil should be legal, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof for the debate, however, if my opponent wishes to argue that krokodil should be legal, than they must somehow show the effects of krokodil to be less than "pure poison".

I await my opponent's response.


Sources:
[1] www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm
[2] http://www.stopcocaineaddiction.com...
[3] http://content.time.com...
Debate Round No. 2
McCool

Pro

Thanks for sticking to the rules of no rebuttals on round 2.
1) I said there would be more space for more serious offenses, never did I say there wasn't enough space. We could in fact close down unused prison and use less tax dollars by not needing to arrest drug users. Netherlands crime rates are exceptionally lower in comparison to America, and in fact there were 19 prisons closed because of the decline and lack of crime rate in their country (http://www.nationmaster.com...)
The following is a table copied and pasted from the following link: http://www.drugwarfacts.org...
USA is the first number and Netherlands is the second

Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use 2009 41.5% (ages 12 and up)1 25.7% (ages 15-64)2
Past year prevalence of marijuana use 2009 11.3% (ages 12 and up)1 7.0% (ages 15-64)2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use 2009 1.5% (ages 12 and up)1 0.5% (ages 15-64)2
Prison Population Rate per 100,000 population Dec. 31 2011 (US) / Sept. 30 2012 (Netherlands) 716 3 82 3
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 "379 4 "223 4
Homicide rate per 100,000 population 2012 4.75 0.95

As you can see, less people actually use drugs where it's legal, countering your argument.

You say 9,000,000 were addicted to opiate in China, that's because it's an addictive substance which is related to heroin, how many people are addicted to tobacco here in America? 40,000,000.

2) This is why we would arrest meth and heroin users just like we do now, as I said before, more serious offenders need to be in prison. As you can see by my previous chart, the legalization of drugs did decrease crime rate in Netherlands (sticking to your example here) and as I said, the US would release a chart about how much of said drug to intake without overdose, and anyone who overdoses did not heed the warning and it is their own fault, I believe saying "Do not intake more then x grams of cocaine" would solve the death rate slightly if not majorly.

3) I do not believe this said drug should be legal, as it sounds worse then heroin. The reason I stated the fact that we would teach about drugs in school is to show that the legalization of drugs would not automatically make children want to try them.

I'd like to hear your reasons that drugs such as LSD and ecstasy should be illegal.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

Due to my failure to follow the prescribed rules I will skip this round and ask that conduct be given to my opponent. I will continue and finish in the final round. This is not a concession or a forfeit, this is me recognizing I failed to follow the rules of the debate as set out.
Debate Round No. 3
McCool

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for being respectful about his error, although it wasn't a huge deal.
In conclusion I'd just like to say that the legalization of drugs in my eyes would
A) Cause many less deaths if the government released an overdose warning/label
B) Cause the crime rate to drop and less tax dollars to be spent on prisoners
C) Increase the tax revenue the government could receive from creating/selling these drugs.
Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. May the best debater win.
TheSpoonyRealist

Con

Again, I will acknowledge the fact that Conduct should most definitely go to my opponent due to my mistake.

However, I would like to point out one key fact about the resolution It states that "The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized*"
*With the exception of meth and heroin.

Now let me see if my opponent's third point says anything of interest concerning this resolution. "I do not believe this said drug should be legal, as it sounds worse then heroin." Case and point, my opponent conceded to my claim and thus, the argument itself. My burden of proof was to show that not all drugs should be legalized, and if my opponent agreeing with me that krokodil -which let me remind you is neither meth nor heroin- should be illegal isn't a concession, then I do not know what is.

I would then like to note that my opponent not only conceded on this point, but believes that I must prove that LSD and ecstasy should be illegal. The fact of the matter is, the resolution does not call for this. I need not prove that all drugs should be legal, but that there is at least one drug that should not be, which my opponent already conceded to.


But, for the sake of being thorough, let me counter my opponent's points anyway.

1) There is indeed a lack of crime as compared to America and I already stated that tax dollars would indeed be saved. But my opponent's reasoning is flawed as correlation does not necessarily signify causation. As my opponent noted there is less crime in the Netherlands, but as I noted in my argument, which my opponent did not refute as false, drug users in Amsterdam make up 80% of all those who commit property crime. Now, let me remind you that Amsterdam itself is different than the rest of the Netherlands as drugs are heavily regulated outside that province, and are instead legal to anyone over the age of 18 within the province. The usage of drugs such as marijuana in the entirety of The Netherlands is not representative of where it is completely legal in Amsterdam, making my opponent's claim that legalization lowers usage rates invalid. This is even taking into account that hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin are illegal and only 'soft drugs' such as marijuana are legal.

My opponent then states that those who were addicted to morphine were addicted because its related to heroin. In fact, heroin is derived from the morphine produced by opium. If opium is the starting point for other addictives, why should it be legal while heroin should not be? My opponent does not say, and in fact I would go as far as to say since they are different drugs entirely, and my opponent piles the harmful effects of each together, they should BOTH be illegal by his logic.

2) I already noted my opponent mistaken here. Furthermore my opponent has no answer for the fact that just because something is not allowed does not mean people will stop taking it. If a person is truly addicted to a drug, would it matter to them what a label on a bottle says? People who take drugs are more than likely aware of the harmful effects related to them, after all, they ARE illegal today.

3) I already stated that my opponent conceded the debate here. Remember my burden of proof I only need to show that one drug should be made illegal, and my opponent has conceded to that one drug. I need not have proved anything else, but I showed the deaths attributed to cocaine and harmful nature of legalization of other 'soft drugs' such as marijuana, fulfilling and exceeding my burden of proof.

Conclusion:
If someone is adamant about taking a drug, they will simply take it regardless of what a sticker on a bottle tells them what to do. If the threat of jail time does not scare them into obedience, why should a warning label? I also disproved my opponent's assertion that drug use decreases crime as his statistics were far too broad to be measured accurately with those of the United States (a more air representation would have been drug usage rates in Amsterdam vs the USA rather than all of The Netherlands.

Finally my opponent once again mentions the drug revenue that can be made from selling and creating drugs. I agree that this revenue could be made... but that does not mean certain drugs should be available to the public as my opponent agrees. The fact of the matter is that not all drugs need to be legalized to achieve these effects. It is not an all or nothing claim as my opponent may believe.

Though I urge you to award my opponent conduct points, his concession of the resolution makes it clear that I have fulfilled my burden of proof. Vote Con.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by McCool 2 years ago
McCool
Just present your case now if you'd like to, I'm not that worried about it.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
Right, I blanked and realized i shouldn't have made a rebuttal there. To show my good will I will skip this next round.
Posted by McCool 2 years ago
McCool
You'd be legalizing marijuana, LSD, Ecstasy, Cocaine, Crack, Synthetic drugs, and other drugs that are currently illegal, while heroin and meth would remain illegal.
Posted by TheSpoonyRealist 2 years ago
TheSpoonyRealist
Wait, wait, wait. How can the resolution be "The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized" when your state that you believe heroin and meth should still be illegal? What is the actual resolution here?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 2 years ago
Hylian_3000
McCoolTheSpoonyRealistTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con admits that he has broken a rule and conduct should go to Pro, therefore I shall give the point to Pro. S&G: No major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments: Con effectively countered Pro's points, while proving some of his own. One of his effective counters is that there is only correlation, no causation between drugs and crime rates. So ultimately, I give the point to Con. Sources: Both utilized sources very well.
Vote Placed by Geographia 2 years ago
Geographia
McCoolTheSpoonyRealistTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were only his Opinions, and anything else was weak. Con was slightly better, but had sources and had more defined points Conduct goes to Pro due to a argeement.
Vote Placed by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
McCoolTheSpoonyRealistTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made it clear in round 1 that there are exceptions to his proposal. So, an argument that Pro conceded cannot be taken against him. It is his right to set the parameters of the debate and Con accepted it so there is no problem. However, con made more convincing arguments and rebuttals than Pro. In addition, Con was not able to meet his burden why all drugs except the 2 should be legal. His arguments can only hold when he is just trying to legalize marijuana. Further, he was talking about label/warnings as justification to minimize deaths, however, this is unsupported. So he failed to meet the BOP... Conduct to Con as pro violated the stipulate... sources tied....
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
McCoolTheSpoonyRealistTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly showed the ill effects of legalizing all drugs while Pro's contention mostly were his opinions.