Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Decriminalization of Illegal Drugs

morgyjay
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hi everyone,
I am writing an analytical research paper on weather or not illegal drugs should be decriminalized in the United States. I would love to here all of your opinions!!! If you think drugs should be decriminalized in the U.S., why and to what extent? If you do not think drugs should be decriminalized please explain why. Thanks!
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 4:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 4:02:07 PM, morgyjay wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am writing an analytical research paper on weather or not illegal drugs should be decriminalized in the United States. I would love to here all of your opinions!!! If you think drugs should be decriminalized in the U.S., why and to what extent? If you do not think drugs should be decriminalized please explain why. Thanks!

http://www.debate.org...
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 8:45:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Decriminalization basically means street drug dealers have a free pass to continue business.

Legalization changes things. Decriminalization only lowers imprisonment rates.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2013 11:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What would be the point in doing this? If anything, it makes sense to reduce the penalty - do you really think someone would be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice?

Anyways, to respond to the OP: I think drugs should be decriminalized for users, since giving access to drug rehab would do a lot more to actually solve the problem - some people are so dependent on certain drugs that they will literally die from withdrawal symptoms, are these really the people we want to put in jail? Isn't the physical and financial pain suffered by these drug addicts not enough to ensure that they won't go back to using drugs? And if we can't keep drugs out of our prisons, it makes little sense to put drug addicts in jail.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 1:34:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 11:40:07 PM, drhead wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What would be the point in doing this? If anything, it makes sense to reduce the penalty - do you really think someone would be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice?

I'm sorry but people very often do make the same mistake twice. The point would be driving home the dangers of mind altering drugs without relying on any subjective evaluation of the effects.

If a drug does not make you violent or harmful to society then this won't be a problem.

The problem is in seeing acts committed while in an altered state of mind as less the responsibility of the person who committed them; when in fact they choose to alter their state of mind and doing so irresponsibility is worthy of punishment on it's own. However since you cannot prove that it was irresponsible unless someone does something criminal the penalty should be attached to crimes.

Same way criminal negligence works, nobody gets punished for negligence unless it results in something that would be criminal if done intentionally.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 5:13:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.

But they're not excused from their actions.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 8:41:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 5:13:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.

But they're not excused from their actions.

Excused from a higher penalty then.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 9:31:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 8:41:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/7/2013 5:13:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.

But they're not excused from their actions.

Excused from a higher penalty then.

Your statement is still off the mark.

1. First, it is somewhat misleading to say that the legal precedent is that of being in an altered state of mind. The underlying "precedent" is simply to recognize that certain crimes require a state of mind (mens rea) to be criminal. This dates back a while and isn't specific to drug usage. It's a sound principle.

2. It seems your worry is that people will deliberately take drugs to commit crimes and then get off. Well, we've already established that they don't get off. Furthermore, it's a positive defense. The defense has to prove that they were in an altered state of mind such that they were less culpable for their actions. I'm not sure what your worry has to do with decriminalization. If this was such a viable strategy, people would be doing it already.

3. Lastly, if a person is deliberately taking drugs in order to commit a crime in an attempt to get a lesser punishment, the forethought involved in that essentially negates any subsequent diminished capacity. The thought process that went into deciding to take drugs to commit a crime would be the legal mens rea needed to prosecute with the full force of the law.

4. If we are talking about true diminished capacity, it, by definition, can't be exploited in this controlled manner that you are talking about. If they have the wherewithal to plan a course of action, take drugs, then stay committed to that course of action, then they have maintained sufficient a state of mind not to use diminished capacity as a defense.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 3:54:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 9:31:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/7/2013 8:41:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/7/2013 5:13:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.

But they're not excused from their actions.

Excused from a higher penalty then.

Your statement is still off the mark.

1. First, it is somewhat misleading to say that the legal precedent is that of being in an altered state of mind. The underlying "precedent" is simply to recognize that certain crimes require a state of mind (mens rea) to be criminal. This dates back a while and isn't specific to drug usage. It's a sound principle.
Alright you got me, that was an exaggeration, but I was thinking of crimes like murder where the death penalties (if any) almost always require mens rea. In such cases there is a very large difference in the punishment with intent and the punishment without.

2. It seems your worry is that people will deliberately take drugs to commit crimes and then get off. Well, we've already established that they don't get off. Furthermore, it's a positive defense. The defense has to prove that they were in an altered state of mind such that they were less culpable for their actions. I'm not sure what your worry has to do with decriminalization. If this was such a viable strategy, people would be doing it already.

No, more like people deliberately taking drugs for a high, committing crimes they would not otherwise have committed; and then not recognizing that their decision to take such drugs is dangerous because they got the same punishment as if they had intended to commit the crimes.

Like a man who beats his wife after he gets drunk, but still gets drunk because he thinks to himself "I shouldn't have beat her, but I won't do it again" not making the connection between destroying his judgement and not sticking to his pledge.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2013 6:49:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/7/2013 3:54:17 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/7/2013 9:31:33 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/7/2013 8:41:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/7/2013 5:13:12 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 9:34:35 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:23:27 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/6/2013 8:09:57 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Drugs should be decriminalized but only if the legal precedent of excusing people from the actions they commit in an altered state of mind is reversed (so long as they choose to alter their state of mind). Perhaps also increasing the penalty for crimes while high.

What legal precedent are you referring to? Any case examples to cite?

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

"An impaired mental condition, caused by disease, trauma, or intoxication but short of insanity, that can reduce the criminal responsibility of a defendant. Not all states allow defendants to offer this plea in response to criminal charges."

Based on this and similar statements. I have not read any specific cases.

But they're not excused from their actions.

Excused from a higher penalty then.

Your statement is still off the mark.

1. First, it is somewhat misleading to say that the legal precedent is that of being in an altered state of mind. The underlying "precedent" is simply to recognize that certain crimes require a state of mind (mens rea) to be criminal. This dates back a while and isn't specific to drug usage. It's a sound principle.
Alright you got me, that was an exaggeration, but I was thinking of crimes like murder where the death penalties (if any) almost always require mens rea. In such cases there is a very large difference in the punishment with intent and the punishment without.

2. It seems your worry is that people will deliberately take drugs to commit crimes and then get off. Well, we've already established that they don't get off. Furthermore, it's a positive defense. The defense has to prove that they were in an altered state of mind such that they were less culpable for their actions. I'm not sure what your worry has to do with decriminalization. If this was such a viable strategy, people would be doing it already.

No, more like people deliberately taking drugs for a high, committing crimes they would not otherwise have committed; and then not recognizing that their decision to take such drugs is dangerous because they got the same punishment as if they had intended to commit the crimes.

Which has nothing to do with the decriminalization of drugs.

Like a man who beats his wife after he gets drunk, but still gets drunk because he thinks to himself "I shouldn't have beat her, but I won't do it again" not making the connection between destroying his judgement and not sticking to his pledge.

Show me an example of a person successfully pleading diminished capacity for beating their wife while drunk.
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 2:51:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2013 4:02:07 PM, morgyjay wrote:
Hi everyone,
I am writing an analytical research paper on weather or not illegal drugs should be decriminalized in the United States. I would love to here all of your opinions!!! If you think drugs should be decriminalized in the U.S., why and to what extent? If you do not think drugs should be decriminalized please explain why. Thanks!

Emotional positions should not count. It's the greater good of society that matters. And not all drugs should be treated the same way under that criteria.

For example, pot causes little harm to the individual taking it. It decreases the will to work and focus on a task, so it has a societal drawback. On the other hand, being illegal means that criminal -as in "not legal"- organizations handle its distribution, which causes crime that otherwise won't exist. Going back to the societal argument, a person who can't get pot can legally get alcohol, which also reduces the will to work. So keeping pot banned is not likely to have a sizable impact on work rates. Therefore, I think pot should be legal.

Repeating the reasoning on heroin, it does cause significant physical harm, in part because of its low quality unpredictable mixes with other stuff, and while there also is a crime industry around it, it's of smaller size than pot's. You can also make the case that legal heroin, administrated by responsible doctors and coming in predictable dosages, will still be dangerous although not so much. So I would advocate a serious comparison of deaths caused by heroin use now minus potential deaths caused by legally controlled use (the latter has to be an estimate), to deaths caused by heroin related crime, and choose the least harmful of the two, as cold hearted as this may sound.
SloppyJoe6412
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 3:12:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I should have accounted for the possibility of drug users to commit drug-induded or drug-worsened crimes besides those related to trafficking, like other did.

Many drugs are depressants or "dreamy", and those cannot be seriously linked to crimes other than those caused by the need to obtain the drug, which are linked to lack of money and are likely to happen even if the drug is legalized. However, stimulants like cocaine or meth do have a correlation with crime, either by giving the user the strength to commit them or by blurring his understanding of what he's doing. There seems to be no reason why legally controlled cocaine or meth would be any better than street market illegal at reducing these crimes, and since it may make them available among a larger group, it may even backfire by increasing stimulant-induced crime. And then again, these should be factored against the user's deaths by low quality products and traffic induced deaths.