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

US Drug Laws against the responsible use of recreational drugs represents Sharia Law in America.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 631 times Debate No: 66787
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Locking people up for responsibly using illegal drugs is nothing more than the American form of Sharia or shariah law. Sharia law is based on theological rules that may or may not morally align with your definition of what is "right" and what is "wrong".


While my opponent agrues that drugs are illgeal do to theological rules akin to "Sharia law." This is not reflective in the reasons why the laws were written. They were made illgeal for rasist reason not theological ones.

The first anti-drug law was a 1875 San Francisco ordinance to keep Chinese men from luring and corrupting white women in opium dens. This was followed with Federal legislation in 1888 that did not apply to whites. In the early 1900 papers, like the New York Times, begain to report that cocaine was making black men rape white women is the south. This is the reason coca cola 11 years before any law would require them to, negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and "Chinamen" seducing white women with drugs. The 1960 was a time of soical up heval. Many Americans fought for civil rights. Many of them smoked weed, and did LSD. The passage of The Controlled Substances Act in 1970 was by large ment to kill this movement. Since the first laws in 1875 to day it is still mostly non whites that are in jail over drugs.

I live in a border state. I smoked, and sold weed illegally for many years. In my area, like many others, most people think it is Mexicans or intercitys were the main drug trade comes from. I spent many years running drugs from nice subran areas to the intercities. The thug gang banner in the intercity is not were the drugs are coming from. More often than not is a white subran family that looks like the model citizen. The people the cops ever even think to look at.

Debate Round No. 1


My premise states US drug laws represent "Sharia" in America.

Define: Represent - Constitute; amount to

I will argue that Sharia laws are Arabic laws rooted in religious moral code, leading to the oppression of the people.

I will argue that US drug laws are American laws rooted in religious moral code, leading to the oppression of the people.

Sharia law or Islamic law deals with many issues in Muslim culture, including social issues such as the use of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs. Islam prohibits the use of any substance that causes intoxication. The purpose behind Sharia law is to assist in the guidance and encouragement of Muslims to take the correct path.

Disobeying sharia leads to a punishment that varies from country to country, some countries have very strict consequences, while other countries may have less cruel forms of punishment. Many minority groups, non-Muslims, as well as unorthodox Muslims find sharia law to be harsh and oppressive, basing judgement on a moral rules that only comport with a portion of Islamic society.

Anti-drug laws in the US, began with the Puritans, who attempted to prohibit the use of tobacco and successfully banned public smoking in Massachusetts in 1632, however, the ban did not last. The Puritans next attempt at prohibition included caffeine, they were once again, unsuccessful. To this point in history, the puritans had been largely unsuccessful at prohibiting the use of substances that intoxicate the body. Puritan's, meaning "against pleasure", religious views observe intoxication as an unrighteous path to God.

The religious pressure to ban alcohol began in the 1830's, lasted for nearly a hundred years and was finally successful in 1919. The first ban on drug distribution was enacted in 1914, recreational drug laws since this first ban have been strengthened and supported by many religious institutions in America for the last hundred years. Reefer madness, a comical 1930's propaganda film, targeted African-americans as marijuana crazed lunatics, that must be prohibited and detained for the protection of christian society. The anti-recreational drug laws have been utilized to detain and oppress Americans, especially minorities in this country for far too long, simply due to the Puritan, "against pleasure", faith.

Puritan religious convictions has led to an exorbitant amount of unjust convicts, based on Puritan beliefs, extenuating from a moral code that does not comport with everyone in the society.
Muslim religious convictions has led to an exorbitant amount of disciplinary actions, based on Islamic beliefs, extenuating from moral code that does not comport with everyone in the society.


My opponent uses the argument “against pleasure” religious reason are responsible for drug bans. My opponent then sites how they have unsuccessful, or temporary. The only anti-drug laws in America that have lasted are ones that were based not on religious grounds but on racial ones. By my opponent's own admission anti-drug laws have been used more against minorities. Rather than give a rebuttal to my argument my opponent as simply ignored my argument and expanded there opening statement.

Debate Round No. 2


In the year, 1897, "Times are beginning to change. The morality movement against alcohol has begun to take hold in various areas of the country. Also, concerns about the use of opium and cocaine beyond medicinal uses is gaining attention."

I do not argue the role of racism in the formation of US drug laws. However, that statement would imply that such racist laws, thereafter; would only effect minorities being targeted and this is not the case. All races, white included have been swept up in US drug laws, making such laws not in theory inherently "racist".

US drug laws are based on morality thus effect everyone, racist laws would only effect those being targeted by such racism. Our drug laws were not made in a vacuum, meaning there is not always one simple reason why a law has been drafted. Laws can be created in an attempt to solve more than one perceived issue.

Drug laws, including alcohol and recreational drugs, were formed from out of Puritan, Protestant, Christian beliefs on morality. The fact that such laws overwhelmingly effect minorities, due to extremely unfair practices, is not the premise I am arguing. I concede minorities, even early Chinese settlements in San Francisco, were/are unfairly affected by US drug laws, however; that fact does not divert from our current drug laws being based in Christian morality.

Early Christian beliefs led to Sharia or morality laws placed on Americans who choose to use recreational drugs.

Early Islamic beliefs led to Sharia or morality laws placed on Muslims who choose to use recreational drugs.


My op-pent as set up there argument that the initial reasons that drugs were banned is due to Christian Morality. Mine is that it was about racial or racist reasons. Let us examine the two lines of thought.

Christian Morality:

When the United States was founded there was no drug or alcohol bans. In the 1830-1840 there began what is know as the Temperance movement. A Christian morally based movement for the illegalization of alcohol It took 90 years for this moment to get a federal law, the 18th amendment to the Constitution in 19. This law as written effected all citizens and its enforcement was not based on race lines. This was repealed in 1933 with the 21st amendment. The first federal anti-drug law as Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This act was enforced along race lines with white convictions solely for commercial distribution. This act did not Cannabis or hallucinogens what were still legal until the the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

I do agree there is a religious composition to the debate over the federal law. I just ague its a secondary reason. Keep these figures in mind.

Alcohol - Took 114 years to outlaw federally for 13 years

Most drugs- 138 years to outlaw federally

Cannabis/hallucinogens – 194 years to outlaw federally

Racial Reasons:

In the early 1900's stories about Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and "China-men" seducing white women with drugs began to appear in new papers.

By 1909 the first federal law against opium was enacted. This only applied to people of Chinese origin.

Total time -about 10 years only to for people of Chinese origin

By 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914 was passed.

Total time- around 20 years

The civil right moment and the 60's counter culture went hand and hand. Many members of the civil right movement used the still legal drugs Cannabis and hallucinogens. The civil rights moment started about 1955. By 1970 the Controlled Substances Act was passed.

Total time- 15 years


When you look at the time lines for federal drug laws a few things become clear. Yes the was a religious argument. This argument went on for decades upon decades with out any federal laws being enacted. Then another argument got brought it to the mix, one based on race. Once that argument came into place every quickly drug laws were enacted. The only one that race card was not used was for alcohol and the law only lasted 13 years.

My opponent makes this statement:

However, that statement would imply that such racist laws, thereafter; would only effect minorities being targeted and this is not the case. All races, white included have been swept up in US drug laws, making such laws not in theory inherently "racist".”

Today they are but not went they were first enacted, with the exception the Controlled Substances Act. To state such laws are based on theological reasons would mean all races are targeted equally. Today we are way more politically correct that in the early 1900's. Drug use is about equal for all races; yet minorities face higher arrest rates, conviction rates, and sentence times than whites. SWAT teams target minorities for drugs 62% of the time. This shows that the laws were originally for raciest reasons and only a half hearted attempt has been made to make things more politically correct in today’s day and age. Until we as an American people admit the racist background of these laws we can not enact real change for the better, not matter our views on drugs. If your in favor of drugs being illegal that this admission can allow us to look at our enforcement of these laws. If you against such laws then it gives you a better standing to repeal such laws.

I took this debate not to influence peoples views on drugs. I did it because I love history. Some times we as Americans have lied to our selves a bit to make the past seem more moral. The war on drugs is one times that even if it was the right thing to do we did it for the wrong reasons.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
But when I'm going to the ATM machine, I actually do say "ATM machine". Guess it depends on the person, similar to "soda pop".
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
1st off, "Sharia Law" is like saying ATM Machines. Just say "Sharia".

2nd off, Sharia is Islamic law. Anti-drug-use policies are not inherently Islamic. Argue that Anti-drug-use policies are theocratic, perhaps, but not Sharia.
Posted by 2PartyFarce 2 years ago
It's also silly that we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world at 762 prisoners per 100,000. That's a lot of tax dollars. Russia is currently second at 532 prisoners per 100,000. The US currently locks up more people than any other county documented in recent history. The previous high was the Soviet Union in 1979 at 660 per 100,000 people.
Posted by Harold_Lloyd 2 years ago
That's a silly premise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: CON provided multiple lines of evidence regarding how there were other reasons the current drug laws exist (e.g. racism). PRO has the BOP, but failed to really make a single convincing argument that religious beliefs are the main influences as to how US drug policy has evolved. Therefore, I vote CON.