The Instigator
SANTORUM2012
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
TheDiabolicDebater
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

War on drugs should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
TheDiabolicDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,159 times Debate No: 23381
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

SANTORUM2012

Pro

1st round-acceptance
2nd round-opening arguments
3rd round-rebuttals
TheDiabolicDebater

Con

I accept. Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
SANTORUM2012

Pro

The war on drugs is officially the most ridiculous war being fought at the time.

1) Money is spent to keep harmless drug offenders in jail.

Over $19 billion was spent on the war on drugs by the federal government in 2003, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This equates to $600 per second. Of this money, 61% went to criminal justice, and 30% went for treatment and prevention programs. As we all know tax payers money pays to keep people in jail, originally prison was meant for people who are a threat to society. I don't see how somebody who smokes a joint one night but is able to go out and work to provide money for his family is at all a threat to society.

2) The average man in prison is a father and keeping children away from there fathers only leads to more crime in the long run.

If a father is in prison he is not able to be at home with his kids
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)

3) Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down.

If you lent a car to someone but they never returned it you could call the police and report a stolen car, however, when somebody lends drugs to someone but they don't get paid back they cannot go and report it, therefore resorting to violence. If drugs were legalized violence would go down and also, I think drugs would lose appeal.

Whatever the case, prison does not help drug abusers as it wouldn't for compulsive eaters or anorexics. They need medical help if there is an addiction.
TheDiabolicDebater

Con

Pro Case

Before moving on to the arguments presented by Pro, I would just like to acknowledge that Pro has the burden of proof in this debate as they are trying to make a change to the status quo.

1) Money is spent to keep harmless drug offenders in jail.

It's not accurate to say that drug offenders are "harmless." First of all, drug users obviously cause harm to themselves by their usage of drugs. Secondly, it is not uncommon for drug users to cause harm to other people. Take for example, the fact that about 8,000 people are killed each year as a direct result of drug-related auto accidents. [1] [2] Additionally, the use of drugs results in more than 400,000 visits to the emergency room each year. [3] The fact that so many drug users are desparate enough to have to seek emergency medical attention is very concerning. Keep in mind, this is under the current system where we are fighting a war on drugs. If the war on drugs was abolished, surely these numbers would rise as people would have an incentive to do drugs.

2) The average man in prison is a father.

That's unfortunate but this argument isn't even relevant to the drug war. You say "the average man in prison," but what we should actually be looking at is the average drug offender in prison because that is relevant to the resolution. I understand that fatherless homes generally yield negative outcomes, but abolishing the war on drugs is not going to change that. Perhaps instead of abolishing the war on drugs, we should put more focus on treating and rehabilitating drug users as opposed to throwing harsh prison citizens at them. Why abolish when we can reform?

3) Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down.

There is no evidence for this claim so it can easily be dismissed as a bare assertion.
As for drugs losing appeal, that doesn't even make sense. When a substance is illegal and entails a prison sentence, it is not appealing. On the contrary, when a substance is legal and more easily available, it is much more appealing.

I do agree that addiction is a medical issue and should be treated as such, but that does not warrant the complete abolition of the war on drugs.

I have more than adequately refuted Pro's arguments so this should be an easy vote for Con. Thank you.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
1) http://www.cdc.gov...
2) http://www.census.gov...
3) http://thedea.org...
Debate Round No. 2
SANTORUM2012

Pro

First of all I would like to point out that Con put his rebuttal in the second round and as for the rules they were supposed to be in the third.

REBUTTALS

"First of all, drug users obviously cause harm to themselves by their usage of drugs"

Whether or not they cause harm to themselves is not our business. It is their choice. Anorexia, bulimia, and cutting ones self are all types of self harm but are treated medically and not by imprisonment. If someone has a problem with drugs it should be treated medically also. If not, it shouldn't be any different than gambling or the consumption of alcohol.

"Secondly, it is not uncommon for drug users to cause harm to other people Take for example, the fact that about 8,000 people are killed each year as a direct result of drug-related auto accidents. [1] [2] Additionally, the use of drugs results in more than 400,000 visits to the emergency room each year."

It is not uncommon for drug users to hurt other people. This is explained in round 2. When drug users feel they were treated unfairly in a drug-related case they result to violence because they cannot go to law enforcement and have it straitened out. If you know anything about prohibition then you know that this was where gangsters came from. Illegalizing alcohol made crime go up. Obviously. 25,000 people are killed each year in alcohol related accidents, but alcohol is legal. 50,000 people go to the hospital each year for motorcycle accidents, approximately 23,000 kids go to the hospital each year for sledding accidents, approximately 7,000,000 people go to the hospital every year for smoking related accidents, yet all these things are legal. Something shouldn't be made illegal simply because of how many hospital visits it leads to.

"You say "the average man in prison," but what we should actually be looking at is the average drug offender in prison because that is relevant to the resolution."

I was simply showing how the cycle of crime directly relates from kids being deprived of their fathers over crimes that really shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, therefore, my argument stands.

3) Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down.

There is no evidence for this claim so it can easily be dismissed as a bare assertion.

There actually is evidence as I am again referring back to the days of prohibition. When alcohol was illegalized it made crime go up.

"As for drugs losing appeal, that doesn't even make sense. When a substance is illegal and entails a prison sentence, it is not appealing. On the contrary, when a substance is legal and more easily available, it is much more appealing."

Actually it makes perfect since. You know. Like when you want something really bad and when you finally get it, it loses appeal.


Closing Argument

Whether or not someone chooses to do drugs is not immoral nor is it dishonorable, it is a decision everyone should be able to make without having the government involve. Ask yourself, would you rather have your next door neighbor smoke marijuana quietly and harmlessly next door without affecting you or would you rather have him imprisoned and your tax money pay for him. FACT. Not every user is an abuser. FACT. Alcohol and smoking does more damage then some of the drugs out there. FACT. I don't do drugs, but that is my choice, and everyone should be able to make that choice.

Thank you.

Vote Con!


TheDiabolicDebater

Con

First of all, in the second contention of Round 2 it should say "harsh prison sentences," NOT "harsh prison citizens."

I apologize for posting my rebuttal in Round 2. Feel free to give Pro the conduct point, but as I will demonstrate now, the arguments should definitely go to Con.

Pro's rebuttal is brief, so I will review it line by line, and point by point.

Refutations

"First of all, drug users obviously cause harm to themselves by their usage of drugs"

I would disagree with Pro here. It is our business if people are causing harm to themselves. If people are suffering, we have a moral obligation to assist them. This is why we have: suicide hotlines, counselors, psychiatrists, and rehab centers. To put things bluntly, Pro is being very insensitive here.

I do agree, however, that a problem with drug usage should be treated as a medical condition. Unfortunately, this isn't relevant to the war on drugs though. I didn't think this would be necessary but just for clarification, the war on drugs is: "An initiative begun under the administration of US President Ronald Reagan that attempted to eliminate—or markedly decrease—drug abuse." [1]

"Secondly, it is not uncommon for drug users to cause harm to other people Take for example, the fact that about 8,000 people are killed each year as a direct result of drug-related auto accidents. [1] [2] Additionally, the use of drugs results in more than 400,000 visits to the emergency room each year."

Pro makes a blatant bare assertion that violence is a result of drug users feeling as though they have been treated unfairly. Pro completely ignores the fact that 8,000 people are killed annually from drug-related auto accidents, so my point about drug users causing harm to other people still stands.

As for crime going up as a result of prohibition of alcohol, I don't see how this is relevant. This is an event that took place over eighty years ago, and while it was illegal to sell or manufacture alcohol in the U.S., it was not illegal to consume it. This is the reason why organized crime was on the rise; It was illegal to sell and manufacture, but it was not illegal to consume. There was a demand, but there was no supply. This was a dream come true for criminals looking to make a profit. The war on drugs doesn't compare to prohibition because it is not legal to manufacture, sell, or consume drugs.

The fact that 25,000 people die annually in alcohol-related crashes don't help Pro's case. It doesn't warrant the end of the war on drugs. Rather, it means we need to implement stricter laws to help curb drunk driving and provide for the safety of the public.

"50,000 people are hospitalized for motorcycle accidents."

By using a motorcycle as a method of transportation, you are not causing a significant risk to other people. You are causing a potential risk to yourself, but this is sufficiently negated by our traffic safety laws and the fact that motor cyclists are required to wear helmets.

"23,000 kids go to the hospital each year for sledding accidents"

Same thing as motor cycles, you aren't causing a significant risk to other people as you are when you are driving a car under the influence of drugs.

"7,000,000 people go to the hospital every year for smoking related accidents"

First of all, anything smoking related can hardly be called an "accident."

Additionally, smoking tobacco does not produce the same mind-altering effects that illegal drugs do. Smoking tobacco may be bad for your health, but it does not impair your mental functions enough to warrant criminilization.

Furthermore, we have laws concerning cigarettes and second-hand smoke to help protect other people.

"I was simply showing how the cycle of crime directly relates from kids being deprived of their fathers over crimes that really shouldn't even be crimes in the first place, therefore, my argument stands."


As I have said before, it is unfortunate that children are left without fathers but that does not warrant the legalization of drugs. We can't simply repeal a law because it puts fathers in jail. This argument is an emotional appeal and nothing more.

Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down.

I already established why prohibition isn't relevant to this resolution. See above.

"Actually it makes perfect since. You know. Like when you want something really bad and when you finally get it, it loses appeal."

No I don't, actually. Not only did you not refute my argument, but you are only stating your opinion here. There's literally no argumentation to be found here.

"Ask yourself, would you rather have your next door neighbor smoke marijuana quietly and harmlessly next door without affecting you or would you rather have him imprisoned and your tax money pay for him."


There's a lot more than just Marijuana that's illegal. You completely ignore the fact that drug users harm other people, and the fact that they harm themsevles and therefore, we are morally obligated to assist them.

Conclusion

This debate isn't about whether or not addiction should be treated as a medical condition. This debate is about whether or not we should end the war on drugs. Pro's entire rebuttal in Round 2 was a result of a complete and utter misunderstanding of my arguments, as well as the resolution. I have more than adequately refuted Pro's arguments, and my arguments have just been misunderstood, and not attacked. For these reasons I see no other vote but Con. Thank you.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources
1) http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SuperiorArsenal 5 years ago
SuperiorArsenal
I find it funny that people talk about crime rates being lowered and highered.
When something is made illegal, people get caught for it, increasing the crime rate
When something is made legal, people no longer get caught for it, decreasing crime rates.

Hey! If we abolished laws against murder, crime rates would go way down! Man, if we just got rid of ALL laws, there wouldn't be any crimes!

See how flawed that is?
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 5 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
I just noticed that XD
Posted by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
Pro - do you realize that you typed "Vote CON" at the end? haha...
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Santorum is for the war on drugs.
Posted by SANTORUM2012 5 years ago
SANTORUM2012
why? its pointless.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
It's just that your name is has Santorum in it and your profile says that you are a fundumental Baptist. Generally, if you believe in those two things, you advocate for an INCREASE in the war on drugs.
Posted by SANTORUM2012 5 years ago
SANTORUM2012
yea
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Wow, you want to end the war on drugs?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 5 years ago
Sojourner
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con succesfully refuted all of Pro's points. Conduct to Pro because Con rebutted in the 2nd round.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I absolutely agree with Pro, but she didn't respond well enough to Con's arguments. This debate could have used another round.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote is bought to you by, Anti Vote Bombers of America. The member know as TAA has officially been added to the black list of death, and should no longer be a problem in approximately three business days. Thank you for your patience.
Vote Placed by TAA 5 years ago
TAA
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: the war on drugs is an affont to our personal liberties. GO SANTORUM!!!!!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Agh, CON won, but counter jacob, he only justified the arguments point. (out of 7) So I counter the rest. So 4 points countered.......... Yeah.. CON won this anyway so... My counter does not effect anything... Yeah my babbling ends here.
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 5 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: ba - nothing changed my view c - rd. 2 was for opening statement s/g - didn't read close enough to vote ca - con - did a good job overall s - con - good sources ; pro had assertions pro also said to "vote CON" :)
Vote Placed by JacobHession 5 years ago
JacobHession
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear victory for the con. The pro argumentation was pitiful and the con handled it easily. Good show from TheDiabolicDebater.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
SANTORUM2012TheDiabolicDebaterTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully refuted all of Pro's points showing how they did not apply to the issue at hand. Conduct for Pro.