The Instigator
gahbage
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
tremendoustie
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

To be decided.

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: 5/17/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,050 times Debate No: 4083
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

gahbage

Pro

Gonna take an idea from some other people and do this, because I'm bored and don't know what to debate about.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example.

Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on.

In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal.

So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
tremendoustie

Con

Interesting idea, sounds fun :).

Resolution 1: The rules and regulations regarding abortion in the United States should be significantly changed.

Resolution 2: The US federal government should discontinue its "war on drugs".

Resolution 3: Marriage should not be handled at all by government, rather, government should treat each person as an individual.
Debate Round No. 1
gahbage

Pro

I'll take resolution 2, The US federal government should discontinue its war on drugs.

100 characters
tremendoustie

Con

I'll take the PRO position, and you can begin, good luck :).

*extra characters for length -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 2
gahbage

Pro

Ok so I'll be CON. However, before I begin I would like to point out two things:

1) The burden of proof is upon PRO (my opponent) to prove that "The US federal government should discontinue its war on drugs." Being CON, I am advocating that the war on drugs should continue. But remember, my opponent has to prove his side of the resolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

2) Always remember, vote on the debate, not the issue.

Now for my contention.

Point 1: Drugs are [obviously] detrimental to the health, well-being and efficiency of society.

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

Let's take a look at the side effects of meth. They include:

- fast loss of teeth
- increased risk of strokes
- heart damage
- withdrawal syndrome from the mother to a newborn
- inability to ejaculate
- hygiene issues
- self-destructive behavior

And here are the side effects of ecstasy:

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

- hyponatremia (low blood salt levels)
- hypertension
- increased heart rate and blood pressure

(I'm on a time crunch so I will not list them all)

All these side effects range from unhealthy to deadly. Thus being detrimental to health. The U.S. should continue its war on drugs because they do more harm than good and are very, very bad for your health.
tremendoustie

Con

I agree that illegal drugs can be detrimental to a person's health. The government's job, however, is not to force people to have healthy habits. Does the government outlaw all fast food -- or soft drinks? Should exercise be enforced at the point of a gun? Of course not, because we realize that in a free country, one must be free to make discisions others consider to be unwise. We realize that the government is not our nanny, and free citizens should be able to make decisions that could harm themselves. It is for this reason that, alcohol, coffee, and cigarettes are legal, despite the fact that they can be harmful.

And, the "war on drugs" is not just a violation of people's civil rights. Today, our jails are overfilled. The percentage of our population that is incarcerated (over 1% now -- 2.3 million individuals) is higher than almost any other country on earth. This puts a strain on budgets nationwide (almost 40 billion per year spent on drug enforcement), not to mention the number of families that are broken up, careers destroyed, and the number of single mothers this causes, who in many cases must then go on welfare, incurring additional costs. This, when education, infrastructure, and other important government functions are undergoing widespread budget cuts.

Drug addiction is a disease, just like alcohol addiction, and it should be treated as such. Drug offenders should be given medical treatment and counciling, instead of jail. For example, a study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center found that treatment is 10 times more cost effective than interdiction in reducing the use of cocaine in the United States. What's more, drugs are still readily available -- all the "war on drugs" has done is ensured that drug money goes into the hands of gangsters and other criminal elements of society. In the 20s, the prohibition on alcohol funneled millions of dollars to Al Capone -- and when prohibition was repealed, the mafia lost much of its power. The same is true of gangs and drugs today -- how many deaths in drug wars could have been avoided -- and how much money is being funneled to nefarious, violent organizations and militias here and overseas because of our poor policies?

A policy based on prevention and treatment of drug addiction instead of a "war" would help keep families intact (and help halt the breakdown of inner city communities), reduce the stress on our budgets, reduce the amount of money funneled to violent gangs and mobs, and keep more people productively in the workforce instead of jail. The secondary benefits of these changes would be huge as well. How many crimes would have been prevented if more of our inner city youth grew up in two parent homes, for example?
Debate Round No. 3
gahbage

Pro

"I agree that illegal drugs can be detrimental to a person's health. The government's job, however, is not to force people to have healthy habits . . . "

However, look at the obvious consequences of having an unhealthy population (or one that is completely messed up by drugs):

- high crime rate
- widespread destruction
- widespread disease
- unhealthy economy (unwiser use of money, more money spent on illegal or prescription drugs, etc.)

Obviously, you don't want any of this stuff happening in your country. Also, take note of that last one - an unhealthy economy. One of the purposes of a government is to keep the economy stable. So this does concern the government's job.

In addition, having a high crime and disease rate does not help with foreign relations - would you want to have an alliance with a country that can't even keep its own public health and safety in order? And, going back to the economy, how do you expect to receive military or monetary aid from a country that can't even solve its own monetary problems?

As I've shown, this concerns public safety and order, a stable economy, and foreign relations, all of which are priorities of the federal government. So to avoid this, the government needs to discourage or outlaw the use of products that may cause it - mainly, drugs.

"And, the "war on drugs" is not just a violation of people's civil rights."

When did civil rights have anything to do with it?

"This, when education, infrastructure, and other important government functions are undergoing widespread budget cuts."

You can't blame it all on drug fighting. Remember that we also spend large amounts of money on the military and public services.

On a side note, I'd like to know where you got that $40 billion, it seems a little high.

"Drug addiction is a disease, just like alcohol addiction, and it should be treated as such."

This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any.

"Drug offenders should be given medical treatment and counciling, instead of jail."

This would require even more government spending. Also, where they got the drugs, how they got the drugs, if they deal drugs themselves or not, and what they did while under the influence are all factors in determining punishment, not just the use of drugs alone.

"The same is true of gangs and drugs today -- how many deaths in drug wars could have been avoided -- and how much money is being funneled to nefarious, violent organizations and militias here and overseas because of our poor policies?"

And that is exactly why the government should do something about [the availability of] drugs in general.

"A policy based on prevention and treatment of drug addiction instead of a "war" would help keep families intact (and help halt the breakdown of inner city communities), reduce the stress on our budgets, reduce the amount of money funneled to violent gangs and mobs, and keep more people productively in the workforce instead of jail."

The "war on drugs" is to make such policies. Also, the employment problem can be solved by adopting a better plan of welfare.

"How many crimes would have been prevented if more of our inner city youth grew up in two parent homes, for example?"

That's a different problem.
tremendoustie

Con

You argue:
"However, look at the obvious consequences of having an unhealthy population (or one that is completely messed up by drugs):

- high crime rate
- widespread destruction
- widespread disease
- unhealthy economy (unwiser use of money, more money spent on illegal or prescription drugs, etc.)"

However, you have not shown that the war on drugs improves society in any of these areas -- the truth is, it does the opposite. I agreed that illegal drug use is usually unhealthy, but the war on drugs has not been shown to decrease drug use at all. Illegal drugs are currently available nearly everywhere in our society, including schools, and even prisons!! If after decades the "war on drugs" cannot prevent drugs from penetrating even prisons, exactly what is it good for? What's more, it can be clearly shown that the war on drugs actually damages society in each of the ways you list:

-High crime rate: In fact, as occured during the prohibition on alcohol, the drug war funnels money into illegal elements of society, including violent gangs, and causes deadly drug wars. Also, consider the huge amount of crime that is committed in order to obtain drugs at artificially inflated prices due to the "war on drugs". And, by ending the war on drugs, law enforcement would be enabled to focus time and money on reducing violent crime, rather than being distracted by going after non-violent drug users. Check out the following link for some more information on the clear link between violent crime and the "war on drugs". http://www.drugwarfacts.org...

- Widespread destruction: For all the reasons listed above, the "war on drugs" has contributed to the destruction of society. In addition, it causes the descruction of the family unit, especially in urban centers, which is one of the greatest tragedies. See http://www.hrw.org..., for example. More Americans are incarcerated than ever before, and most of the increase is due to the failed "war on drugs". These are in many cases fathers and mothers who have been ripped away from their families and communities, when they could have instead been treated for their addiction.

In fact, enforcement of the "war on drugs" has been highly descriminatory. According to the Human Rights Watch Report: Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, May 2000 Vol. 12, No. 2 (G), Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison. The message is, if you're white or wealthy, you get treatment, if you're black or poor, you get jail.

- Widespread disease: If anything, the "war on drugs" has increased the spread of disease. Exchange programs that would reduce the repeated use of needles, and therefore the transmission of aids and other blood borne diseases are outlawed, lest they be percieved as encouraging drug use. Letitimate uses of drugs for terminal cancer patients are in most cases illegal, despite the continued legality of much harsher drugs, like morphine. Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail.

- Unhealthy economy: This is perhaps the most absurd of your claims. Currently we funnel billions of dollars to drug lords and gangs, throw huge percentages of working members of poor neighborhoods in jail for nonviolent crimes, and spend tens (some estimate hundreds) of billions of dollars per year on the "war on drugs". The federal budget reported at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... shows over 10 billion dollars per year spent, and that does not incude the continued cost of incarceration (more than 1 in 100 americans are now in jail, and more than one in five of those is in for drug related offenses). That means there are more than 500,000 imprisoned on drug related charges, at an annual cost of over $25,000 per prisoner (http://www.usdoj.gov...), adding another 12.5 billion dollars per year. All of this is money that could be used to spur the economy, or provide needed government services. This does not even include local and state costs of cooperating with the federal war on drugs, or the lost salaries of those imprisoned (and often the cost of supporting their families on the public purse), lost taxes that could be collected on legal drugs, etc. All of these effects could easily top 100 billion. Information on spiraling prison costs: http://article.nationalreview.com...=

You ask, "When did civil rights have anything to do with it?" I hold, as many do, that the govenment should not use force to impose morality against a person that is not committing any harm against another. It is especially hypocritical when the abuse of alcohol and nicotene are perfectly legal, and are treated medically.

You state, "You can't blame it all [budget shortfalls] on drug fighting. Remember that we also spend large amounts of money on the military and public services." Other contributors to budget shortfalls are irrelevant, my point is to show one more benefit of ending damaging drug policies.

You quote me and say,
""Drug addiction is a disease, just like alcohol addiction, and it should be treated as such."

This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any."

Also,
""Drug offenders should be given medical treatment and counciling, instead of jail."

This would require even more government spending. Also, where they got the drugs, how they got the drugs, if they deal drugs themselves or not, and what they did while under the influence are all factors in determining punishment, not just the use of drugs alone."

There is no contradiction, I quoted a study showing that drug treatment is much more cost effective than imprisonment (did you miss it?). Also, I don't know why you're talking about anti-drug ads - this is not the crux of the war on drugs. Finally, you speak of factors in determining punishment. I don't see what this has to do with the present situation, as I was suggesting counciling and treatment instead of "punishment".

You state, "And that [drug wars] is exactly why the government should do something about [the availability of] drugs in general."

They have tried for decades, and it has only caused more violence, as it did when they tried a prohibition on alcohol. The fact is, the government can never eliminate the availablility of drugs -- the best thing to do would be to take the supply of those drugs out of the hands of criminal elements.

You state, regarding the widespread negative effects of the war on drugs, "The "war on drugs" is to make such policies. Also, the employment problem can be solved by adopting a better plan of welfare." I frankly don't know what you're tring to say in the first part there. The fact that other actions, like welfare reform, may also help solve employment and poverty problems, does not change the fact that eliminating the war on drugs would almost certainly do so -- your statement is totally irrelevant.

You say, "That's [youth deliquency due to poor family environments] a different problem.

I'm arguing precisely that it is the very same problem, and that the "war on drugs" is ripping our inner cities apart.
Debate Round No. 4
gahbage

Pro

"However, you have not shown that the war on drugs improves society in any of these areas -- the truth is, it does the opposite. I agreed that illegal drug use is usually unhealthy, but the war on drugs has not been shown to decrease drug use at all."
That's why the government needs to step it up. Benefits don't come from fighting a war, they come from winning it. And you have to fight a war to win it. On the contrary, there are disadvantages to losing a war. Giving up/discontinuing is losing. The disadvantages, obviously, include the ones I provided.
"Illegal drugs are currently available nearly everywhere in our society, including schools, and even prisons!!"
If the government stopped now, the availability of drugs wouldn't change. People would still deal drugs in those places.
"Also, consider the huge amount of crime that is committed in order to obtain drugs at artificially inflated prices due to the "war on drugs".And, by ending the war on drugs, law enforcement would be enabled to focus time and money on reducing violent crime, rather than being distracted by going after non-violent drug users."
The government isn't distracted by this, they are only keeping an extra eye out for it as well as other crimes. If a cop witnessed a murder, and then noticed an innocent bystander doing heroin, he'd still go after the murderer.
"In addition, it causes the descruction of the family unit, especially in urban centers, which is one of the greatest tragedies"
If the U.S. stopped this war on drugs, it wouldn't prevent people from using/continuing to use drugs. What destroys the family unit is the use of drugs. The last thing discontinuing the war on drugs would do is prevent drug use.
"More Americans are incarcerated than ever before, and most of the increase is due to the failed "war on drugs". These are in many cases fathers and mothers who have been ripped away from their families and communities, when they could have instead been treated for their addiction."
See my last response. Also, you would still be separated from your family if you underwent treatment. You just wouldn't be in a jail, but rather in rehab.
"In fact, enforcement of the "war on drugs" has been highly descriminatory. According to the Human Rights Watch Report: Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, May 2000 Vol. 12, No. 2 (G), Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison. The message is, if you're white or wealthy, you get treatment, if you're black or poor, you get jail."
Whether you get treatment, prison or both depends on the situation and the judge. Enforcement of these policies has nothing to do with war itself, as the war only makes it illegal. The court determines your punishment.
"Exchange programs that would reduce the repeated use of needles, and therefore the transmission of aids and other blood borne diseases are outlawed, lest they be percieved as encouraging drug use."
I don't see how switching needles encourages drug use. Does that have anything to do with the resolution?
"Letitimate uses of drugs for terminal cancer patients are in most cases illegal, despite the continued legality of much harsher drugs, like morphine."
Morphine is a painkiller. Other drugs, such as the ones I showed in my first argument, are too dangerous to be used as painkillers.
"Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail."
Like you mentioned before, there is treatment.
"This is perhaps the most absurd of your claims. Currently we funnel billions of dollars to drug lords and gangs, throw huge percentages of working members of poor neighborhoods in jail for nonviolent crimes, and spend tens (some estimate hundreds) of billions of dollars per year on the "war on drugs"."
And cutting all anti-drug funding would solve any of this? Also, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime.
"The federal budget reported at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...... shows over 10 billion dollars per year spent, and that does not incude the continued cost of incarceration (more than 1 in 100 americans are now in jail, and more than one in five of those is in for drug related offenses)."
We don't have to cut spending in that area. See my second response after this. Also, these people are incarcerated for their unwise choices of illegal drug use.
"I hold, as many do, that the govenment should not use force to impose morality against a person that is not committing any harm against another. It is especially hypocritical when the abuse of alcohol and nicotene are perfectly legal, and are treated medically."
Nicotine is forbidden for minors and in most public areas. And, once again, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime.
"Other contributors to budget shortfalls are irrelevant, my point is to show one more benefit of ending damaging drug policies."
It's relevant in the fact that I can just as easily argue, "Cutting military funding will solve this budget problem". Keep in mind, I am not advocating this as an alternative. I am only saying that you can't blame one specific topic of overspending for underfunding of another topic.
"This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any."
I stated that to show that you were contradicting yourself; you worry about the spending, yet advocate mass rehab.
"...the best thing to do would be to take the supply of those drugs out of the hands of criminal elements."
Good idea. However, you just helped me, as this would be considered part of a "war on drugs".
"The fact that other actions, like welfare reform, may also help solve employment and poverty problems, does not change the fact that eliminating the war on drugs would almost certainly do so -- your statement is totally irrelevant."
What I'm saying is, the war on drugs is hardly connected to poverty. The USE of drugs may be, but not anti-drug movements. Which makes YOUR statement irrelevant.
Now I will address some major points. My opponent's reasons for ending the war on drugs are as follows:
a) It takes up too much of our budget
b) It isn't affecting drug use in a positive way
c) It would bring more attention to other, more violent crimes
d) It puts many people in jail and destroys families
Here are my responses:
a) It takes up $14.1 billion in 2008 as suggested by your source. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org... which is backed up by gpoaccess.gov, in 2008 the total spending will be $2.9 trillion. That means the war on drugs only takes up 0.04862% of the budget. That's much less than 1%. That's not a problem, is it?
b) What makes you think stopping drug resistance will cause drug use to go down? If the war on drugs isn't helping, then stopping it certainly won't do any better - use common sense. Besides, that only tells us that we need to increase funding.
c) The worse crimes already get the police's attention. A policeman is obligated to attend to the more dangerous crime happening at the moment. Like I said before, if a cop witnesses a murder and a kid doing heroin, he will go after the murderer.
d) The war on drugs does not destroy families and incarcerate people - drugs themselves do. So we need to resist something that incarcerates people and destroys families, not stop resisting it.
So, vote con (well technically, vote PRO):
1) My opponent's claims are untrue and blame the war on drugs for the problems that the drugs themselves cause.
2) My point still stands that it is in the government's interest to fund the war on drugs.
tremendoustie

Con

Since I do not herein have the space to quote the discussions in their entirety, please refer to the prior rounds if context is needed.

PRO states, " ... Benefits don't come from fighting a war, they come from winning it ... there are disadvantages to losing a war ... The disadvantages, obviously, include the ones I provided."

Yet, I have shown that the disadvangages you state have been the consequences of the war on drugs over the last 30+ years. Perhaps you wish us to believe that suddenly, after over 30 years, what has failed in the past will magically work, and these negative impacts will end. One definition of insanity is continuing to try the same thing, hoping for different results. We have tried prohibition with alcohol, and it failed and was repealed, and we have now tried the "war on drugs" for 30 years, and it has failed -- the rational response would be to conclude that prohibition causes more harm than good, and should be repealed.

I have shown that the war on drugs is a known harm, -- your hope that it will not continue to be so does not constitute evidence or a reasonable basis for policy.

PRO states, "If the government stopped now, the availability of drugs wouldn't change. People would still deal drugs in those places."

Of course -- but we would not be spending billions of dollars, and causing all of the other miriad harms that I showed. If the PRO side is himself admits that the war on drugs accomplishes nothing -- that drug availability would be the same either way -- why on earth should the policy be maintained?

PRO states, "The government isn't distracted by this, they are only keeping an extra eye out for it as well as other crimes. If a cop witnessed a murder, and then noticed an innocent bystander doing heroin, he'd still go after the murderer."

There are entire divisions of police and detectives dedicated to drug enforcement -- of course these resources could be directed elsewhere.

PRO states, "If the U.S. stopped this war on drugs, it wouldn't prevent people from using/continuing to use drugs. What destroys the family unit is the use of drugs. The last thing discontinuing the war on drugs would do is prevent drug use." and, "you would still be separated from your family if you underwent treatment. You just wouldn't be in a jail, but rather in rehab"

I was speaking of the family destruction that occurs when non-violent drug users are taken from their families and thrown in jail, instead of getting treatment (as is used for alcohol and gambling abuse), which has been shown to be both cheaper and more effective. Jail only increases criminality and addiction. Treatment need not necessarily include isolation from family.

PRO states, "Whether you get treatment, prison or both depends on the situation and the judge. Enforcement of these policies has nothing to do with war itself, as the war only makes it illegal. The court determines your punishment."

Yes, but these discriminatory policies are a known harm of the war on drugs. This discrimination shows that the war on drugs is being harmfully implemented -- the only meaningful way we can judge a policy is based on the reality of its implementation.

Pro states, "I don't see how switching needles encourages drug use. Does that have anything to do with the resolution?"

It absolutely is topical, because one of the impacts of the war on drugs has been the elimination of these needle trading programs, the absence of which has worsened the spread of AIDS and other blood borne diseases.

Pro states, "Morphine is a painkiller. Other drugs, such as the ones I showed in my first argument, are too dangerous to be used as painkillers"

You give no evidence that these drugs would be too dangerous to be used in certain situations as painkillers medically -- the reality is, the reason the phrase "medical marihuana" exists at all is precisely because the medical profession has found that it is useful for pain management.

I stated, "Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail."

And PRO's response is, "Like you mentioned before, there is treatment."

PRO's response makes little sense -- my point was that drug users can often not come forward to get the help they need, for fear of prosecution. I can only conclude that is is a dropped argument, and PRO agrees with me. Clearly ending the war on drugs would enable more addicts to get the help they need.

PRO responds, "And cutting all anti-drug funding would solve any of this? Also, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime."

Do people get their beer Al Capone these days? No, they get it from respected, regulated sources. Ending the war on drugs would take drug money away from gangs and violent crimnals, and end the other harms to which I referred.

PRO states, "We don't have to cut spending in that area ... Also, these people are incarcerated for their unwise choices of illegal drug use."

Again PRO begs the question. Secondly, of course people are sent to jail because of drug use, we are discussing the wisdom of these policies. Are people sent to jail because of poor choices in abusing alcohol, cigarettes, or junk food? No, they get help.

PRO states, "Nicotine is forbidden for minors and in most public areas. And, once again, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime."

Minors are not yet capable of taking full responsibility for their actions. And of course a crime is a crime -- such a statement is meaningless when we are discussing what should and should not be a crime.

Pro states, "... I can just as easily argue, "Cutting military funding will solve this budget problem" ... you can't blame one specific topic of overspending for underfunding of another topic."

So, if I steal from you, it's not a harm as long as you dropped some quarters in the gutter too? Of course having to spend billions of dollars is a harm, PRO is being absurd.

Pro writes, "I stated that to show that you were contradicting yourself; you worry about the spending, yet advocate mass rehab."

I quoted studies that show that treatment is both more effective and less expensive than imprisonment.

PRO states, "Good idea. However, you just helped me, as this would be considered part of a "war on drugs"

It is prohibition that gives the criminals control, as has been shown time and time again ...

Pro states, " ... the war on drugs is hardly connected to poverty. The USE of drugs may be, but not anti-drug movements ..."

PRO does not think that imprisoning the primary wage earner in a family would cause poverty?

I will now respond to PRO's last points:

a) The costs, including local enforcement and imprisonment are certainly north of 50 billion, as I have shown (and that's not including the huge negative econimic impact of the war on drugs, or possible revenue from taxation). This is a significant amount of money by any measure ...

b) Pro states, "If the war on drugs isn't helping, then stopping it certainly won't do any better".

Since there are many known harms of the war on drugs, if it is failing to bring drug use down, why on earth keep it?

c) There are huge blocks of money and personel set aside for drug enforcement -- PRO's bored cop on a streetcorner example is simply not typical of how law enforcement works.

d) How can drugs themselves incarcerate anyone? This makes no sense at all.

In conclusion, I have shown that there are many known harms of the war on drugs. My opponent has not shown that there are any benefits of the war on drugs, and indeed has agreed with me that it does not reduce drug usage. Why should any program, with all these harms, and few if any benefits, be continued?

Vote CON, for all these reasons and others. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Nevermind. 25 characters.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
You are PRO in this debate.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
I don't know who you're talking about XD

You mean me as PRO or CON?
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Unless CON(or I guess PRO) is insanely stupid he will win hands down.
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Sorry for the sloppiness, my computer was dumb.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tremendoustie 8 years ago
tremendoustie
gahbagetremendoustieTied
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 gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
gahbagetremendoustieTied
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