The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Total legalization of all drugs

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,384 times Debate No: 19061
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)




I also made a video emphasizing on some of these points, followed by a two hour discussion with my friend, feel free to watch it and the conversation ---------------------->

The fact that drugs are illegal is the cause of many problems in our society today. This economic crisis is partially due to the fact that the "war on drugs" is failing miserably. Back in prohibition the mafia and gangsters would profit substantially while people were buying under the counter alcohol that was made in someone's bath tub, which would make them blind or even kill them. After prohibition was repealed and companies start producing alcohol for money, the underground black market for alcohol saw its way out the door. Why would you buy alcohol with the potential to make you blind or even kill you when you can go up to the gas station and choose from an assortment of different products?

This position correlates heavily to the situation we're in today. This "war on drugs" is producing the same problems that the United States witnessed back in prohibition. An underground black market run by criminals who murder innocents and each other for mere profit of laundered drug money. Reaching out to children to drug deal in order to "get rich quick" and take the risk of being killed before they're out of high school. Not to mention the amount of tax dollars that go into "drug prevention", which is arresting drug lords for life and spending a teacher's salary annually to house a prisoner who sold a little bit too much marijuana. Also should I mention how many people have their cars excavated for random drug searches on our roads just to find they have nothing? Or may I also mention the fact that "probable cause" is about as elastic as congress' "necessary and proper" clause.

You'd be astounded how many people go to jail or even prison for long periods of time for petty drug charges. Like when the police were at the door and believed they had "probable cause" to kick the door down and arrest the hard working man who was blowing off some steam by lighting a joint and watching television, enjoying his well earned chill time. I'm not saying if you're under the influence of something and you're stupid enough to go out and commit a crime (which you were probably going to do anyway) that you shouldn't be held responsible. Fact of the matter is when you put something in your body, you're responsible for the outcome, and if you didn't do your research on what you should expect to happen to you and you freak out, it was your own ignorance that was your downfall. Why should an entire population be held responsible for those few individuals who are imbecilic enough to do such things as that? We shouldn't. By the way, can you imagine how much healthier these illegal drugs would be if they were moderated by the government? Why would I buy the black tar heroin my neighbor is selling if the government has a regulated stock that was made carefully?

Don't even try to argue with me that if drugs were totally legal that the black market for drugs would still exist. That's like saying there's an underground black market for tobacco and alcohol. There isn't, BECAUSE THEY'RE LEGAL. Hm, while we're on the subject of alcohol and tobacco, let's get into that. Tobacco isn't to blame for the cigarette companies putting excessive amounts of carcinogens in their products to make them burn faster and be more addicting. Yet the government doesn't care about that fact, because they're getting plenty of tax revenue from it. Tobacco itself isn't that bad, but these companies are poisoning us and the government is fine with it. So how can you look me in the eye and say that "public health" is the issue here? That is a downright LIE! Also, alcoholism is another very unhealthy thing. Among how many cancer patients has it been pinpointed to alcohol or cigarette consumption... Think about it. Thought about it? Alright, now how many cancer patients have been linked to marijuana? Alright I'll wait for you to pull a number out of your rectum... Can't find one can you? How many marijuana smokers have holes in their neck so they can breath?

Back to alcoholism. This is a extremely big problem in the United States. You can probably find someone in your family who is inflicted with alcoholism. The information is out there, and the government seems to just overlook it casually. They don't overlook it though, they ignore it. Know why they ignore it? Tax revenue. So if you want to fight a moral war with me about how legalizing drugs will be wrong, then first you fight the moral war against alcohol and the corrupt cigarette industry. Marijuana studies have shown that the plant is actually beneficial in many aspects, hence the 16 states who have already approved its medical use. In comparison to tobacco or alcohol, marijuana comes out on top in the benefits field, so to hell with your morality.

Since when has the government saying something is illegal ever stopped someone? Think of it in this way. The government is your parents, your parents tell you not to do something. You're a rebellious teenager. Are you going to do what your parents told you? NO. You're going to do WHAT YOU WANT. Except instead of getting grounded, you go to prison for the rest of your life and enjoy having the bathroom in your bedroom behind steel bars, leaching off our taxes and being a forced unproductive member of society who instead of contributing taxes actually consumes them just because you wanted to try something new.

The positives of legalizing all drugs far outweighs the negatives. The negatives are already being seen while it's illegal! People are going to do something regardless of what the government says. Perhaps the few that don't want to get caught won't do it. Again, THE FEW. If you want to make this a moral war, I'll give you your morals here. You think drugs should be illegal, giving drug lords and an underground market of criminals the ability to make profit by tax evasion and criminal acts of robbery and murder. You think that it is safer forcing people to buy drugs from the streets (increasing the likelihood of them getting robbed or even murdered) instead of the regulated government. You think the government cares about the health of the public when they allow cigarette companies to put unnatural chemicals in their products to make them burn faster and be more addicting, AND allow people to succumb to alcoholism so they can abuse their children and lover, as well as themselves? You think these drug problems that you think will happen due to them being legal will really be worse than they already are?

By the morality of things sir, YOU HAVE NO MORALS. Stop looking at the bad side of things and start looking at the good.


Hello and thank you for this debate. Pro believes that all drugs should be completely legal, i will be arguing that a more moderate stance of partial legality is more beneficial.

1. alcohol

Alcohol is a popular drug because it makes us feel nice and increases sociability. Along with this however, are decreased motor skills and impaired judgement. This combination leads to some unpleasant consequences for individuals/societies.
My opponent already acknowledges that alcohol is bad for ones health and can lead to increased violent behavior causing domestic abuse. On top of this we can see statistics that show alcohol is dangerous for both the user and those around the user. For example, 30% of fatal car crashes involved at least one person with more than the legal limit of alcohol in their blood[1]. Women who drink while pregnant increase their childs risk of developing a FASD, which will adversely affect them for the rest of their lives[2]. Increase risk of miscarriage and infant death are also increased[2]. Alcohol consumption should not be legal for pregnant women, just as it should not be legal for drivers. Alcohol contributes to 79,000 deaths anually and " is the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year"[3].

2. Tobacco
The negative health aspects of tobacco are pretty well known, although i will concede my opponents point that it is more to do with the additives than the nicotine. nicotine is not even on the suspected carcinogens list and most of its negative aspects only occur in higher doses. However in its most commonly consumed forms it is not only unhealthy for the individual smoking it, but the smoke escapes into the environment which causes health problems to nonsmokers near the smoker. The CDC estimates that second hand smoke causes 46,000 deaths each year[4]. Even if you believe in the individuals right to harm themself you have to agree that this habit is harmful to others as well, and should therefore be made illegal. An alternative i offer is that while smoking tobacco(especially the stuff with additives) should be illegal, nicotine cartridges and electronic cigarettes should remain legal. this minimizes harm to the user as well as those around the user. Remember that pro wants full legalization for all drugs. I'm advocating only partial legalization for tobacco.

3. other drugs

many other drugs, including but not limited to heroin, cocaine, pcp, prescriptions,and amphetamines, are highly addictive and harmful to both users and bystanders. heroin and cocaine give short highs that usually need to be satisfied again after the they wear off. they cause the user to do things to get high again that would not normally be done, such as violent crime. They do not enrich that persons life but they inevitably destroy it, and in the process hurt many innocent people such as the users friends and family. Drugs like these should not become cheaper and more widely available or more socially accepted. production and sales should remain illegal and non violent use of these drugs should lead to manadatory treatment. If it were as simple as one individual weighing the pros and cons and then deciding to consume something that was only harming theirself, then yes maybe we could legalize drugs. instead people decisions affect many people besides themselves and do not always make rational choices. It is moral irresponsibilty to ignore this and just say legalize everything and things will magically work out for the best.

4. antibiotics
antibiotics are drugs used to treat bacterial infections. once again, i will support only partial legalization instead of the total legalization that pro wants. Because bacteria are highly adaptable, they evolve quickly and unnecessary use of them can allow for resistance to be developed[5]. thus losing an important drug that can save many lives from serious infections. This drug should be illegal except in cases prescribed by a medical doctor to preserve the usefullness as long as possible.


ill address each paragraph on its own, since pro didn't use bullets or numbers to identify his exact argument.

p1-war on drugs is failing. prohibition creates black markets. drugs were made more harmful by prohibition.

If the war on drugs is failing, then we should be reforming our methods to be more effective and cheaper. Should we end the war or murder or the war on rape just because the cost money and rapes still happen? No. Similarily there are black markets for killers and sexual slavery, should we legalize killing so that we can get the business out of blackmarketeers and into legitimate business? no. as for the last bit, alcohol might be safer than during prohibition but look to my above argument for how it is still harmful to individuals and society. It being more dangerous also sounds like an effective deterrent.

p2- it costs money to keep it illegal, people sometimes get searched for drugs.

it costs money to send killers and rapists to jail, it costs money to enforce other laws, why in this case all of sudden we shouldn't spend any money to protect society? If people are getting searched it's possible they were acting suspiciously or driving in a way that suggested there motor skills may be impaired. I think not searching would unjustified. If we found someones fingerprints on a murder weapon should their house not be searched?

p3- petty drug users get arrested, you're responsible for your actions

i don't think that petty drug use should be an arrestable offense, however manadatory treatment should be the prescribed punishment for those abusing illegal substances. as for responsibility, what about the kid in the backroom who's mommy and daddy just od'ed on cocaine? its not as simple as i harmed myself and no one else suffers. their actions affect others.

p4- "Tobacco itself isn't that bad, but these companies are poisoning us and the government is fine with it."

pro contradicts himself here with his p1, first he argues that legalization would make drugs safer and now argues that the gov't is fine with how the tobacco companies have made tobacco worse for us. the rest of this paragraph is a strawman of arguments not made by con.

p5- "Back to alcoholism. This is a extremely big problem in the United States. "

ummm i agree, actually thanks for this whole paragraph it supports con that alcohol is detrimental and should be at least partially illegalized.

p6- making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening.

same rebuttal as p1. basically this line of logic supports legalization of murder and rape.
p7- kind of a summary of previous points.

In summary i believe that partial legality of certain drugs is more beneficial than total legality of all drugs. I look forward to your rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 1


I appreciate the wall of text on par with my own. Although I do feel like you are quite biased on drugs, you can't compare drugs to murder or rape. Drugs by themselves can't be used to harm anyone. It's when the person who uses them didn't know what to expect and doesn't know how to deal with the mind alterations they are going through. The only time drugs are distinctly related to harming people is when drug dealers practically force their drugs on their customers. I will respond justly to your flawed concepts.

1. Alcohol

Doesn't really need a response

2. Tobacco

The negative health aspects of tobacco are not even a fraction of the negative health aspects of processed low quality cardboard tobacco that these companies mix with quick-burning and addicting chemicals. You know how cigarette smoke smells like poison? And pipe tobacco smells almost perfuming? There's a reason for that. Tobacco in itself while it isn't necessarily healthy to smoke ANYTHING, it is a lot less detrimental than smoking the processed types I mentioned. I still make my stand on the choice being the individual's responsbility.

3. Other drugs

This goes back to my individual's choice argument. If you go into something without knowing what's in there, you can only expect to be bit by a snake. Drug ignorance is his/her fault. It is only harmful to yourself if you do it in an environment where you're the only one around, or at least a friend is watching you. This argument of yours has no basis, people get hurt from other people being careless in a lot more cases than having no inhibitions. It's all about the environment you shouldn't do them in. It's moral irresponsbility to give welfare money to crackmothers who let their kids starve and be homeless while she prostitutes and uses government money to get her next fix. I blame the individual for that, not the drug.

4. Antibiotics

Who would do antibiotics for the hell of it? They aren't even recreational...

P1 - The war on murder and the war on rape aren't even a comparison to the war on drugs. You don't HAVE to go commit a crime while you're high. Murder and rape on the other hands are crime against another person. What crime are you doing to someone for getting high? Besides the obvious one neglect if that individual is that stupid. Obviously these crimes that directly hurt others on purpose should be illegal, because the intent is to violate someone's natural rights. The intent of a drug is to embrace the good feelings, no one does a drug with the intent of killing someone after it. Your argument here isn't even plausible.

P2 - Rapists and murders and other crimes that denied people their natural rights belong in prison. Locking up people for getting high recreationally doesn't protect ANYONE. Lunatics are lunatics regardless of if it's drug induced, it's their own fault and they should be prosecuted for it. Recreational users are peaceful and keep to themselves. Stop judging an entire population of drug users for what some undereducated(if educated at all) hoodrats do. Maybe those people were sleep deprived? Maybe they just weren't paying attention? That's why you shouldn't rip people's door panels off and cut open their seats.

P3 - It is as simple as I harmed myself and no one else suffers - IF you are a responsible individual and don't do things like that when you don't know the correct dosage and have a kid to care for. Those parents would have done it whether or not it was illegal so what would it matter? So the parents could be sent to prison for life in the case that they survived and then left the kid instead of saying my parents are dead, they're both in prison for life? Your argument is invalid.

P4 - I said there's no reason why tobacco and alcohol - with all of their known negatives - are still perfectly legal and used by general society, when drugs like marijuana aren't.

P5 - Taxes

P6 - Maybe your line of logic supports murder and rape, but the true line of logic is murder and rape are an entire different ballpark from using drugs, they can't be compared. Don't put words in my mouth.

Perhaps the drugs like meth that are "the first time you're hooked" drugs shouldn't be legal, but marijuana, shrooms, LSD, and others that are all mellow and have no harmful effects except for setting regarding shrooms and LSD.

Spend a little less time being drug biased and comparing recreational drug use to conscious murder/rape.


1. alchohol

my opponent has chosen to ignore the evidence provided that alcohol is harmful to both individuals and society at large. I urge voters to see this as a concession to con.

2. tobacco

i argue that tobacco should be illegal and replaced by electronic cigarettes and nicotine cartridges. this will remove the negative health effects to others that pro ignores. "I still make my stand on the choice being the individual's responsbility." shows that he has not acknowleged that second smoke is a danger to people who have made the choice not to smoke.

3. other drugs

i maintain that we not legalize production or sale of hard drugs like cocaine or pcp. pro believes that the choice to use these types of drugs only affects that individual, however these drugs cause people to lose perspective and do bad things. i did not advocate that we should give welfare money to crack moms who neglect their kids, i argued that they should be rehabilitate so that they can be positive members of society and take care of their children.

4. antibiotics

antibiotics are drugs and total legalization would mean sale of them anywhere for anyone. this is clearly not good as people will buy them for themselves or their children when they have a viral infection or only a mild bacterial infection. as i argued previously this eventually renders the drug useless when it is actually needed for medical emergencies.

p1 - "no one does a drug with the intent of killing someone after it. " no but people commit crimes to pay for their habit, people do horrible things under the influence of certain drugs that would not normally be done. whether because the person would be incapable of raping or because when not under the influence they would be able to restrain themselves.

p2 - the point isn't tha doing drugs is the same as killing or raping, its that the line of reasoning used also could be used for the legalization of murder and rape.

p3 - "Those parents would have done it whether or not it was illegal so what would it matter?" again murderers would murder whether or not its illegal, when we repalce get high with murder or rape suddenly that logic doesn't sound so appealing.

p4 - irrelevant to the debate.

p5 - ?

p6 - it is your line of logic that supports those things. "Perhaps the drugs like meth that are "the first time you're hooked" drugs shouldn't be legal," is that a forfeit? meth certainly falls under all drugs. " but marijuana, shrooms, LSD, and others that are all mellow and have no harmful effects " i have not mentioned these drugs in my arguments, so bringing them up is a strawman.
Debate Round No. 2


Alright I didn't mind your insolence the first time, but now I see it's just blatant and irrelevant. I disregard anything Con has to say anymore because he is obviously biased. He has twisted my words to mean things that aren't even my views, and questioned my motives for reasons nonexistant. Con has compared the peaceful use of drugs to the capital crimes of murder and rape, showing how desperate for things to argue about he is. Although I will respond to end this debate.

1. I wasn't ignoring your argument, I said nothing needed to be said as in I agreed with you. I "urge voters to see" your oblivious attitude concerning this entire debate has completely killed the mood.

2. You cant make something illegal and then replace it with something else like that, if people want to smoke, they're going to get it illegally. They don't care what the law has to say about it, nor has anyone ever concerning their immediate life. I do acknowledge that second hand smoke is a danger, which is one of the reasons why I've stated MULTIPLE times that drugs shouldn't be taken around other people. People act in their own self interest, so they'll do what they want regardless of what lame nonsense you can muster.

3. So now you're trying to tell me what my beliefs are? I clearly implied that it's solely the individuals fault for doing the drug around other people. You didn't advocate we should give welfare money to crackmoms but you didn't even recognize in amidst talking about neglectful druggie parents. Again, the individual's own self-conjured problems. Obviously what one person does can affect another person's life. It's called being a human being.

4. You'd have to take an antibiotic for a LONG time for your body to "render it useless". Rarely are people prescribed antibiotics beyond one prescription. 30 capsules isn't enough to build that strong of an immunity that you're suggesting.

P1. The fact that you even compared the "black market for killers and sexual slavery" to the massively larger black market for drugs shows how ignorant you truly are. If someone truly feels the urge to rape someone, they shouldn't be messing with drugs in the first place, that's a given. Again going back to the individual's choice to take that risk.

P2. No, you have no point in this aspect. You'd have to be born retarded, dropped on your head, played football throughout college, and tripped and fallen on a boulder to be stupid enough to honestly believe that this line of reasoning could be used for legalizing crimes that SPECIFICALLY aim to harm other people. Don't ever compare leisure time to ruining someone else's life again. Your idiocentricy is giving me and the spectators a headache.

P3. THAT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE CAPITAL CRIMES AND THE GOAL OF THOSE CRIMES IS TO HARM SOMEONE. That's the nth time you've pulled that card. Next time choose a card that actually makes sense instead of seems desperate for an argument.

P4. The argument is over the legalization of all drugs... So obviously that is relevant.

P5. Taxes and the 21st amendment are why they won't make alcohol illegal.

P6 - Bahaha now you're just wishfully thinking. In no way shape or form do I support bringing conscious harm to someone's life or their family. The topic of debate is ALL DRUGS, it doesn't matter what you've brought up, they are still an element of the argument. There's a lot more drugs out there than just meth, what would you rather I made a debate talking about why every drug but meth should be legalized? It goes without saying that a drug with that radical of an effect on someone shouldn't be legalized, but in the case that it was, it'd be the consumer's fault.

In conclusion, Con responded in a biased manner throughout the debate and instilled irrelevancy throughout to dilute the topic as a whole. Thank you for reading this far if you've been able to sit and witness Con's uneducated views long enough to not get an advil. And those of you who did need to get an advil, it's alright. I need one too.


I'm going to try and keep this short and sweet since it is round 3 and no new arguments have been made.

" Con has compared the peaceful use of drugs to the capital crimes of murder and rape"

this is a strawman, i do not believe that taking drugs is the same as murder or rape. i do however, believe that the line of reasoning pro uses to justify total drug legalization can also be used to justify more heinous crimes. i'm referring to pro's argument that people are going to do it anyway so we might as well legalize it, this reasoning would mean legalization of everything.

"Obviously what one person does can affect another person's life"

exactly this is why i have argued that legalization of certain drugs would be more harmful than beneficial. legalization would make crack cheaper and more easily available to people than it is now. the harms of this drug outweigh the benefits, most people can't just have a little bit of crack now and then.

" It goes without saying that a drug with that radical of an effect on someone shouldn't be legalized"

yea i know ;)

thanks for the debate and be sure to vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TeeJayFlow 6 years ago
Well I thought it was a given, hence the wall of text. So yes, start debating.
Posted by kogline 6 years ago
is 1st round for acceptance or should i start debating?
Posted by TeeJayFlow 6 years ago
@16kadams: I implied marijuana was more beneficial, I didn't say it was harmless. As with all drugs, you need to know what you're putting into your body. And no, why in the world would anyone buy street drugs with the potential to be laced with something when the government is regulating them? Your argument is invalid. Highly taxed drug: $500 black market: $100? What? You do realize alcohol and cigarettes are "highly taxed"... I didn't know they were $500 a pack! Cannabis makes you aggressive? Really now? Have you been sheltered all of your life? It would seem so. Your analogy has no value to it. Since cigarettes are $40 a carton in one area and $20 a carton in another, people cross state lines to get the cheaper deal, I've not once heard of someone going to a drug dealer to get tobacco products. Stop arguing with no basis for anything.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I may accept later.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
marijuana is good? 400 carcinogens. 40% more chanse for schizophrenia even if you smoke it once. Cannibis makes you agressive. mouth cancer, lung cancer etc. fail
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
sorry to say, but the black market would exist. If we tax it then it would. Highly taxed drug:500$. black market:100$. so see they'll buy it illegally. Oh by the way these numbers are fake obviously.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by curious18 6 years ago
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: You can't argue for all drugs then backtrack on it. You totally have to stand by you resolution.
Vote Placed by imabench 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had very good arguments and con claimed he was tired of pro's insolence and that cost him conduct. Con also used 5 sources (all of which checked out) and the only one the pro used was a video from his own blog. Very good debate though
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
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: Pro had to establish his case for all drugs, then he made an exception. That is absolutely a forfeit. Pro should come out and show why we should legalize the worst drugs, because then softer drugs would have fallen out of the debate, restricting con's ability to make a counter-argument. Con dealt well with practical points but didn't have a good response to the freedom of choice case. Pro could have pressed this more. Con win on the forfeit.