The Instigator
Jessabel
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
xploze
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

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...
Jessabel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,636 times Debate No: 9963
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Jessabel

Pro

Introductory: Police chief Nick Pastore said " If you think everyone who uses drugs is the enemy, you're more likely to declare war on the people."

Resolution: US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective

Brief Definitions: Drugs= illegal substances that are for getting high or self-medicating
War on Drugs= policies made in response to opposing the creation, distribution and consumption of drugs
Ineffective= not causing the desired or intended result
Value: Public well-being

The purpose of the War on Drugs is to improve the quality-of-life of Americans. Drugs serve a great danger to the communities. Health, Social, and Economic costs exist and therefore justice must be served to those that bring this danger to American society. However, since justice is used to pursue this purpose to improve the-quality-of- life and Americans pay taxes to fund it this must be justified with efficiency.

Criteria: Efficiency, Justice, and Quality-Of-Life will be the measure of this.
Efficiently relates to performing tasks in an organized way in which is capable of achieving the desired result with the minimum use of resources, time, and effort Justice relates to fairness or reasonableness in the way people are treated or decisions or made, and the act of applying or upholding the law.

Issue 1. Has US policy been efficient?
A. United States spent more than $4 trillion on the War on Drugs in 2008
B. 1 .The two most efficient programs were Weed & Seed which cost 32 million in 2008, around $967 thousand per 1% result of a total of 33%
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...
2.Drug Free Communities 79 million in 2008 $1.8 million per 1% result at a total of 42% this program had the highest rate of success above all other drug programs
3. DEA spent 2.8 billion in 2008 over $108 billion per 1% of results while effectively only getting 26% of results.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
(Under category of Results and Accountability)

C. United States in 2009 discontinued the effective program of Weed & Seed. They ONDCP also cut funding for the Drug Free Communities program despite criticism from Senator Grassley, Chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus of it being the most successful program in the fight against the Drug War.
http://www.jointogether.org...

Issue 2: Has the War on Drugs respected justice?

No, civilian police are trained to keep the peace, and protect our rights, while upholding our civil liberties. The federal government erodes these principles in pursuit of fighting the drug war.

A. Government pays professional "snitches" who tip off police in exchange for leniency or cash rewards for information leading to arrest.
1A National Law Journal found money paid to informants jumped from $25 million in 1985 to $97 million in 1993 2a. In 2004 in Riverside, Ca there had to be a review of 15 convictions as it was revealed that a confidential informant routinely used in drug raids was planting drugs in suspects cars. This is one of many incidents.

B. Provides financial incentive to violate Civil Rights
1b. Extra funding through grants the federal government offered a large amount of funding for drug policing (could offset SWAT team funding), bringing no additional funding to other programs Asset forfeiture laws allow police departments to keep and sell assets involved in drug raids. Therefore violating civil rights enable the profit of law enforcement agencies.

C. Drug War Policy puts pressure on law enforcement to act against constitutional interests

A. Swat deployments in the 1980's started at 3,000 but by 2001 increased to 40,000 annually.
A2.SWAT are paramilitary police units often used in the war on drugs. Their tactics involve no-knock raids which are against constitutional interest, and therefore justice.(shows change in incentive policy)
A3. In 1999 Less than 1% of weapons seized by law enforcement in the US fit the definition of an "assault weapon" showing the danger faced is rare.
A4. In comparison SWAT encounters showed a 34% increase in the use of deadly force by police in the 5 year period of 1994-1998.
1C. Denver judges found that judges had denied 5 out of 163 no-knock applications over a year period.
2C. In Denver out of 146 no knock raids only 2 resulted in prison time

These are not desiring results and therefore are not effective
Issue 3: Does the War on Drugs impact the quality-of-life of Americans negatively?

A. SWAT encounters in 1994-1998 showed a 34% increase in the use of deadly force by police over that 5 year period.

B.Stacy Renee Walker was caught in the crossfire on the War on Drugs. She was shot dead while she clung to her child. It is US policy revolving around the War on Drugs that enabled this to happen.

http://www.cato.org...

http://www.cato.org...

War on Drugs is in effective because in the pursuit of US Policy on the War on Drugs. It allows criminals to profit or benefit through exploiting US policy. This enables exploiting a ‘Russian Roulette' method a gamble of innocent or guilty. It allows law enforcement to act upon incentive of finances over law. It aswell is ineffective. It is a waste of American's tax dollars as in comparison to tackle the supply side of the War on Drugs cost approx $108 million per percent compared to $967 thousand per percent result. The War on Drugs is ineffective aswell due to the fact that it does not do as intended. It therefore wastes both time, resources, and effort, in direct opposition to their intended goal to reduce the negative impacts of drugs.
I look forward to your response, as we are both allies in the pursuit of the ultimate truth.

Furthermore,I gratefully thank my audience who will be the judges of our nobility toward our pursuits for this greater truth.
Thank you

http://blog.drugpolicy.org...

"Its hard to overlook the fact that soldiering-up of civilian police forces it taking place as part of the larger War on Drugs, which grows more saturated with war imagery, tactics, and phraseology everyday." Radley Balko policy analyst specializing in civil liberties stated this.
xploze

Con

Open the gates, a new world is coming in� were the words of a famous drug dealer.

As you imposed, drugs are separated in 2 main categories, both illegal and which cause dependence.

A. Drugs as in illegal substances for getting high.

The number 1 category has been always a problem for all countries, not only United States, but, also, it hasn't been a priority in any countries.
United States has the war in Iraq as a priority, and long after, on the list of forgotten things is War on Drugs, although huge amounts of money have been assigned to this cause, it is impossible to stop the drug dealing even if countries have budgets to do it.
Drug dealing has reached to a high scale and now it cannot be stopped, only downgrade it to a lower scale, but, that's also hard to do.
The United States have made the borders like fortresses but it doesn't affect the drug dealing which is coming from Mexico.
As a measure of safety, lots of organizations have been created along the years to strike the dealing of illegal drugs coming from Mexico and foreign countries, but none have been successful.
Certain areas of the Local Police have been assigned to the lost case of war on Drugs, but, they have been also influenced by the latest suggestions from the head of the US to impose the drugs as legal, or at least some of them.

B. Drugs as in illegal substances for getting self-medicating.

As most of us know, drugs have been used in hospitals as a way of treating people. Let's take this case, if you would have been in a car accident and you would've suffered severe traumas and the pain would be, unbelievably insupportable would you rather face that pain or take a shot of morphine which could make the pain like an itch in your ear?
War on pharmaceutical drugs never existed and will never be, they will always be in hospitals to treat sick people, and without these so-called drugs, people would suffer more, and the hospitals would be like a place where people scream all day long.
You should avoid including war on pharmaceutical drugs in this debate, or, you might have wanted to say: "War on people who abuse pharmaceutical drugs", and yes, that would be a great issue to debate on, but as you have not mentioned it, I will skip it.

Main idea:
Many and many ideas of War towards drugs have been applied during the years and none have been efficient, and none will be, the only things that will change will be less drug dealers and less addicted people, you will never face no drugs or no addictions.
The United States has done it's best against War on Drugs. The International Narcotics Control has shown that the drug dealing has not been that high in 2008, as it has been in 2007, so, as I mentioned above, the actions that the United States have done in 2008 were effective, observing that the drug dealing has had a lower rate in 2008.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Jessabel

Pro

Quote:

"United States has the war in Iraq as a priority, and long after, on the list of forgotten things is War on Drugs, although huge amounts of money have been assigned to this cause,"

My opponent has shown undeniably that my resolution US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective is indeed true. He has shown, that the United States has chosen a war other than the War on Drugs to pursue. Never mind that it in fact is the War on Terror it is a confirmation that the United States is not working toward an effective means toward the War on Drugs.
Also approx 500 billion over the years for the Iraq war compared to 4 trillion on the War on Drugs in 2008-US drug policy obviously has priority. I would recommend you research.

http://www.wired.com...
Quote:

"Drug dealing has reached to a high scale and now it cannot be stopped, only downgrade it to a lower scale, but, that's also hard to do"

Let it be noted that my opponent has indeed confirmed further that pinpointing the "supply" side of the drug war is ineffective. It is by decreasing demand by weeding out violent criminals, and providing economic opportunities of growth whereas a community can find profit in more legitimate professions that is effective to treat the Drug War. This proves the exact point I am trying to say, to you the audience. We should be very grateful for my opponent to come to full agreement with me regarding the subject. Let me emphasize further what my evidence has indeed shown through my statistics on the War on Drugs.

The two most efficient programs were Weed & Seed which cost 32 million in 2008, around $967 thousand per 1% result of a total of 33%

DEA spent 2.8 billion in 2008 over $108 million per 1% of results while effectively only getting 26% of results.

So essentially the US spends inefficiently $108 million by tackling the supply side of the War on Drugs as opposed the demand side- the buyers being given economic opportunity and poor neighborhoods having violent criminals taken out while those that seek treatment-require less funds to tackle the War on Drugs spending only $967,000 to get the same 1% of result measured by government assessment of the US Office of Management and Budget.

Quote
"The United States has done it's best against War on Drugs. The International Narcotics Control has shown that the drug dealing has not been that high in 2008, as it has been in 2007, so, as I mentioned above, the actions that the United States have done in 2008 were effective, observing that the drug dealing has had a lower rate in 2008."

I would restate that the Us has not done its best, if it had it would have tackled the more -demand side of the drug war. Those that are given economic opportunities, violent crime falls, people are no longer pushed to pursue selling drugs as their means of income Drug free communities cut down the demand side of drugs and less was brought to the areas where drugs were usually a regular visitor.
And also let me emphasize that my opponent has not taken the resolution to heart.... I am not debating if International policy is ineffective- I am debating if US policy is ineffective. Let me remind my audience however that just because you intervene on one supply area does not mean it ceases. Its the 'balloon effect" you put pressure on one area and it switches to another. However if you tackle the demand side, you keep the air from shifting within it.

http://grassley.senate.gov...

http://www.boston.com...

("Grassley, who is the chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, said he suspected that the figures were being manipulated to "provide a rosier but not necessarily more accurate picture of the current situation."

As Walsh shows in great detail in the report, ONDCP suppresses the cocaine price and purity numbers that hurt it politically and trumpets those that support its claims.

"This is more of the same from ONDCP; it's not surprising at all, although it's very disappointing," said Robinson. "What we showed in our book is that they selectively choose and present statistics that support their case and they ignore or downplay statistics that don't support their case, and that's what this report shows them doing as well,"

Drug producers have also learned to rescue, replant, fortify, and move coca bushes. Satellite imaging over the last six years has revealed a 'balloon effect," in which illicit crops are squeezed out of one region and new bushes pop up elsewhere

The UN's Calvani says eradication alone will never win the drug war. Governments must 'eradicate illicit crops from the minds of the people" by simultaneously helping farmers earn a living from other crops.")

efficient: Acting or producing effectively with a minimum of waste, expense, or unnecessary effort.

One of the measurements for this debate is efficiency which involves a minimum of expense and unnecessary effort. this goes to show that the Warlike tactics of the War on Drugs is ineffective and is shown not to work. The United States continues to use methods which has shown to do little as compared to treating the demands at home. Therefore there ineffectiveness reflects our failure as a country to treat the War on Drugs as what it actually is: a cancer that threatens to consume society as we know it.

Also one last thing my dear opponent I meant literally illegal drugs such as cocaine or meth not prescription drugs. Morphine is not an illegal substance. Some people use illegal drugs to self medicate for their undiagnosed mental illness. Thus reflecting a greater urgency to treat the War on Drugs as a disease, and not a war. As lack of economic opportunities, violent neighborhoods, and mental illness undiagnosed creates the incentive for people to self-medicate seeking to create an imagination to which they can escape their miserable lives.
xploze

Con

I thank my opponent for answering.

Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort :).
Effective: producing a deep or vivid impression.

I never said that the War is ineffective, I will repeat myself. The war on drugs is not a priority, but anyway, they did their possible, the most that they could to deal with drugs, which is a way of being efficient.

Let's take it as an example:

In our house, 5 out of 10 people take drugs / deal drugs in 2007, in 2008, 4 out of 2008 are taking drugs / dealing drugs in our house. It's from 5/10 to 4/10 it's efficiency, it modified that scale.
The War on Drugs has been efficient, the drug dealers and drug addicts are LESS than they used to be. Having a war doesn't mean that every bad thing that was in the past will no longer be in the future.

I n Romania, Yugoslavia and other communist countries, when the system was abolished, people still remained faced towards the ideology the communists imposed towards society.
War doesn't mean a TOTAL change, today is bad, tomorrow will be good. It's today is bad, tomorrow will be better, because, NOT everything had been changed over a war, only a few things.

My dear opponent tried to explain the money spent on War on Drugs (4 trillion) and the ones in Iraq (500 billion), I have one question, have you counted the loss of people? The dead soldiers that were killed? The kids who lost their fathers, the mothers and fathers who lost their children, have you? Money cannot replace humans.

When a country finds a goal, as the US found the War on Drugs, they cannot put all their money and human force in there, if more people are assigned to other wings of the Police, as the Anti-Drug wing, there will be less policemen on the streets, less policemen when you dial 911.

As I said and I repeat myself, efficiency does not mean abolition, it means performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort.
Debate Round No. 2
Jessabel

Pro

469...

That was the total number of US soldiers that died in the Iraq war in 2008...
http://www.icasualties.org...

Compare that to...

1.7 million deaths...

from drug related deaths and you can see the bigger picture of just how ineffective in how we, the US, have treated this drug issue; that of which is a cancer-into a war.

There is no denying my dear audience that loss of life is of priority in the grander scheme of things, it is also why I find that my opponent has indeed agreed, that those deaths have not been justified.

We respect the loss of our veterans, those that fight for the great cause they serve in... Inevitably some of our own veterans out of their pain turn to the very drugs-we are speaking of- as an illusion to treat their undiagnosed condition of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder...
http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

Yet inevitably they may be treated as felons, thrown to jail for the pain they suffer as a result of facing the utmost tragedy.

Thus my opponent has shown that we both agree that loss of life is significant very much so to this debate. Yet leading to these terms it seems only obvious... how ineffective the US has been toward the War on Drugs. How they have shamed the veterans, of our US citizens for the good battle they fought. If we fail them in our ability to treat them well as the good veterans they are, then we fail in our effectiveness. When we shame our veterans, we fail our own ability to see compassion. These soldiers that fight our war bleed in their minds and hearts, and often we choose not to listen to them-instead we shackle them of their liberty, and therefore treat them as a drug fiend.

These are the sort of policies that the US supports.... and it should become rather obvious to you the audience that nobility lies where the preference to life over death exists... Remember that...

Thank you, my dear ally to the pursuit of truth, you have reminded me that indeed it is the lives that matter, and that is exactly why the US policy toward the War on Drugs-is ineffective...
xploze

Con

I appreciate the promptness of my opponent in answering and I respect her answer.

First of all, I want to clarify that people who take drugs are not forced to do it, nobody puts drugs in their veins or in their other body parts, it's them, not forced by anyone or pushed from behind, it's them who decide to take drugs.

Soldiers defend our country, they're the people that sacrifice their life for us, they're for you out there, and for me, 1 soldier for me is like 1,000,000 drug addicts ( I have no intention to discriminate drug addicts, it's just my opinion).

As I already said.
Efficiency and effective doesn't mean a WHOLE new beginning, it implies only a few changes, in better. US made 1 drug addict to quit drugs, isn't that efficiency or shall I call, isn't the war effective? It didn't make all of them quit, but 1 means improvement, efficiency.
Debate Round No. 3
Jessabel

Pro

Jessabel forfeited this round.
xploze

Con

I shall explain myself easier, for the whole voters too see.

Resolution: US Policy toward the War on Drugs is ineffective.

Dictionary:
Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort :).
Effective: producing a deep or vivid impression.

The US has did it's possible, performed in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort, and it worked.

As statistics show, 2/10 people quit drugs in 2008, the effects have been shown, from 1,000,000 drug addicts, 200,000 stop taking them. Isn't it effective? Aren't the facts obvious that the US has been effective?

It's about being effective, and the effects have been shown.

I feel sorry for my opponent that she couldn't reply cause of the flu that got her ill and I hope she'll be back up on her legs soon.
Debate Round No. 4
Jessabel

Pro

Jessabel forfeited this round.
xploze

Con

Let the voting begin.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
man, jessabel gave up and still won...thats not right, even if he was right
Posted by xploze 7 years ago
xploze
I wish to know who voted and for what, reasons. I find it despicable for someone to vote without saying the reasons.
Posted by Jessabel 7 years ago
Jessabel
I have a flu and was not able to respond with a timely response though it should be obvious to any of you. My opponent has clearly overlooked the definition of efficiency. As efficiency relates very obviously to the maximization of resources, time, and energy. It has nothing to do with improvement.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
The war on drugs has been ineffective and I wrote a paper on the subject about 8 years ago. I was going to take the other side to see how Pro addressed some bad arguments, but I am pretty clear that Pro knows the correct responses. I will decline. Good luck.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
I agree, can't debate against it : )
Posted by Jessabel 7 years ago
Jessabel
Each government program has goals that they set each year that revolve around their purpose. They make realistic goals that they anticipate they would be able to accomplish. The US Office of Management and Budget looks at how much $ the program and the Department that funds that program is given each year to accomplish their goals. The percentage I gave in total result is how close they came to their goals- titled as "Results/Accountability." If you looked at the debate you would notice the most effective methods are going after the "demand" part of the drug war rather than the 'supply' part. In other-wards, US Policy chooses to use an 'ineffective' means to attack the drug war, rather than a method they already know works.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
It's not gonna happen, no, it's not gonna happen~
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
And the intended result is get rid of drugs completley?
Posted by Jessabel 7 years ago
Jessabel
effective= causing the desired or intended result
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Define effective.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
JessabelxplozeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Jessabel 7 years ago
Jessabel
JessabelxplozeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
JessabelxplozeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
JessabelxplozeTied
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