The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Neuhaus1994
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US 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 2 votes the winner is...
Neuhaus1994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,109 times Debate No: 24883
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

InVinoVeritas

Pro

Definitions:

"Drugs that are currently illegal": In this debate, we will be discussing ALL of the drugs that are currently considered illegal in the United States today. [1]

"Legalized": To make legal, (obviously.) [2]

---

First round is for terms/definitions/acceptance.

---

[1] http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Neuhaus1994

Con

I accept this debate. Also by the term legalize I assume that you mean, to make taxable, producable, salable, and transportable in regards to legal means.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. People have a right to make decisions for themselves without government intervention, as long as it does not infringe on other people's rights.

Drug use, in itself, does not infringe on the rights of anyone who is not the drug user. Therefore, the government should not regulate or prohibit use.

2. In Portugal, loosening up laws on drugs and not putting criminal consequences to their use has been a success and has led to positive results. [1] Ending the war on drugs, it follows, would be beneficial to society.

[1] http://www.time.com...
Neuhaus1994

Con

Pro has made very common sense points in this round, but his logic is flawed. Pro states that the government cannot regulate items that do not infringe on others rights. I concede to this point whole heartedly. The possession of drugs however does led to the the harming and therefor infringement of other people. Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs. Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico. The US however does not have effectively organized cartels, and therefor the immediate decrease in drug related crimes would not be driven down as predicted in Portugal's model. More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer. There are reasons that organizations like the FDA prevent companies from releasing dangerous drugs. To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers. Secondly, the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them just as government agencies do in other sectors.
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Pro

"Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs."

No. People should certainly be charged for murder. But drug possession is not equivalent to murder, nor is there implied causation. If someone is on drugs and kills someone, he/she should be punished for murder just like someone who kills someone while not on drugs. People should not be charged with something that could POTENTIALLY occur as a result of an action they choose to take.

"Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico."

That's not true. In 1999 Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. And The number of heroin users was estimated to between 50,000 and 100,000 at the end of the 1990s. [1] These factors led to the adoption of The National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs in 1999. And, again, the results show that the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal worked.

"More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer."

It is well-established that cocaine has serious risks attached to its use. With this in mind, a consumer should have the right to make the decision of whether or not he or she should use it. It is an individual choice. If I want to eat cardboard every day, I should be able to, without government intervention, because it is my choice for myself. The government is simply a group of people, and as I said before, no one should be allowed to infringe on the rights of others; this would include one's right to perform acts of self-harm.

"To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers."

Tainted food that is sold as regular food is deceptive and criminal. This is like selling cocaine as flour. But tainted food that is sold as tainted food should be justly sold if demand exists.

"...the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them..."

The government is a group of people with arbitrary viewpoints, just like people in the general population. I do not know if the claim about the "majority of the population not caring" is true, since I found no study evidencing it. But acts that do not infringe on the rights of others should not be regulated by a group of people with a set, narrow view that opposes the views of members of the non-government population.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Neuhaus1994

Con

I know that the BOP is on myself. For that reason I will have to reassert my previous points against pro's rebuttle.

1. Pro states that people have the right to "eat cardboard if they want to."
The notion that people have the "right" to do things that are harmful to themselves is unfounded. The fact is that if someone is harming themselves others around them are also being harmed. For example the person that is eating cardboard is going to have digestive problems, and so will have to see doctor. That doctor then has to spend time helping that person with an affliction that was preventable. Also then family and friends will then have to take time out of their day making sure that he/she is not still harming themselves. In the case of drugs the general disruption of people's lives around them can be very substantial, and can even break up families. This also refutes pro's point that the use of drugs do not infringe on others rights.

2.Pro states that the government is a " a group of people with a set, narrow view that opposes the views of members of the nongovernment population."
This statement is blantantly false. The government is by definition representative, and to say this is to refute the very nature of the American Republic. Therefore any elected official is given consent, by mutual confirmation, to do as they see fit to "promote general wellfare." Also there are no studies to be found regarding this point, and therefore can not be proven to be true.

3. "Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers"-Wikipedia artical on Portugese drug policy.
The previous reference made by pro that Purtugals reforms have been effective, are refuted by the fact that it is still illegal to grow, sell, or trafic drugs. Therefor the previous statements about Portugal have to be seen as simply a liberalization of drug laws rather than the legalization of drugs, as pro suggests.

Works Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Pro

1. "For example the person that is eating cardboard is going to have digestive problems, and so will have to see doctor. That doctor then has to spend time helping that person with an affliction that was preventable. Also then family and friends will then have to take time out of their day making sure that he/she is not still harming themselves."

The doctor is not harmed in this situation... and the family and friends CHOOSE to help the person, because THEY do not want the person to hurt himself or herself. They are burdening themselves; the person is not directly harming them, since they are doing it to themselves. What a godawful analogy.

2. "The government is by definition representative, and to say this is to refute the very nature of the American Republic."

It's virtually impossible that a single person representing the views of a body of people accurately represents the majority of people on every political stance.

3. It is illegal, but it is decriminalized. And that makes the laws looser then those in the US. We see as the laws were loosened on drugs, overall, the ramifications were less adverse.
Neuhaus1994

Con

Pro has attempted to prove his point, by refuting my own points. It is clear that pro cannot find reasonable proof of his case. Also I will remind the voters, that such statements as "That is a godawful analogy," only discredits the validity of that person.

Pro states "It's virtually impossible that a single person representing the views of a body of people accurately represents the majority of people on every political stance."
In this particular case, pro seems to believe that the United States is a dictatorship, while in actuality it is a massive array of 100 senators, 9 supreme court justices, 365 reprentatives, and all of the people in the executive branch. Therefore such a wide variety of people duly elected by the people have every right to restrict, and criminalize drugs.

In conclusion, drugs cannot be made legal, for the following reasons.

1. Drugs are pyshically harmful to people.
2. Once started, drug use will create habbits that will last a life time.
3. Criminal acts are feuled in large part by drugs.
4. Drugs not only effect the person using, but also the people that feel it thier human duty to help, and support them.
5. Drugs effect relationships, and therefore the children of those relationships.

Unfortunately, acceptance of drugs will not solve the problem that people are becoming addicted. Therefore the only logical thing to do is to cut off the drug supply, and to incarserate those whom willingly made themselves into the drug addicts that they became.

I want to thank Pro for this debate, he was an able debater.

Vote con!

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
ravenwaen, I never said Portugal "legalized" drugs...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
TheOrator, you're likely going to be torn apart. Enough said.
Posted by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
Pro's likely going to be torn apart, it takes a pretty skilled debator to pull of advocating cocaine, heroine, meth, and other drugs like that. Not that Pro isn't a skilled debator, but I've just never seen him debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ravenwaen 5 years ago
ravenwaen
InVinoVeritasNeuhaus1994Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had some good points, both sides made some mistakes. Pro's primary source about Portugal wasn't about legalizing but liberalizing, as Con rightly pointed out. Con could've done a better job of showing how drugs don't only affect the user. Tough choice!
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
InVinoVeritasNeuhaus1994Tied
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: Drug use can infringe upon the health and rights of other non drug users. Con showed this and refuted Pro's point.