The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ThatcheriteMight has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/9/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 112548
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




I believe that all drugs should be legalised, whether it is dangerous or not is irrelevant
I challenge anyone to change my mind.

The only downside I see with the legalisation of drugs is that there might be a 1-2% more drug addicts.


Hello, I accept your debate. As I see you are a libertarian, I hope to at the very least offer you a different perspective on this topic. It may be worth mentioning I have known people that have taken drugs, dealt drugs, and been around them. Personally however, I admit I have never ran into them.

So what is a drug? The word is a broad term. It could range from anything as trivial as caffeine, to something as detrimental as meth. However for the sake of this debate I will assume you mean detrimental drugs, as those are the ones kept illegal. Secondly, why do people take drugs? Well, typically, the way these addictions start off is due to people looking for escapism or a release, as they are dissatisfied with life. One they have taken these substances however, they easily become addicted, and find it hard to stop. Drug addiction is typically more widespread in poorer areas, thus it would be harder for the addicted individuals to find help to stop, or have people to reach out to.

This leads onto my first point: keeping them illegal protects people from themselves. Now I do not believe in a nanny state; if someone"s stupid enough to leap off of a cliff, well, that"s natural selection; I don"t think we need signs telling people that it"s dangerous to jump off cliffs. But with drugs, it is often one mistake, and then a violent addiction is born out of it. Parents, teachers, officers of the law, they will all become a shadow of their former selves, as their life begins to revolve around one thing: getting high.

Also, the addiction rate would, as you said, go up. But the people mostly at risk if they were to become legal would be adolescents. Teenagers are teenagers; we"re impulsive, and we like breaking rules and societal norms. So if drugs become legal, it won"t take much for teens to start doing them, thinking they"re the cool thing to do, or a way to rebel. Teenagers are already smoking and drinking underage, and while yes, they"re age restricted products, it"s much easier to get someone older to buy you a product than have anyone get a restricted, black market product. I think an omen for what would become is legal highs; they"re only an inch of the kick of a real drug, and yet they"re already ruining lives.

You could make the argument that some drugs are near harmless; the elephant in the room, cannabis. And you know, I don"t think it should be in the same class as ketamine or codeine. However it"s not fully harmless; while it doesn"t have any health risks, it makes people lazy and unproductive, and is tied to gang culture/thug culture. Through that, it can easily become a gateway drug.

I eagerly await your response.
Debate Round No. 1


Your first point were to keep drugs away from people. I agree, I do not want people to do drugs, but i dont think that drugs have to be a bad thing. Most people can handle their life while doing drugs. About one in 3 adults do drugs in their lifetime. I would not think that you believe that 1 in 3 adults have ruined their lives. So that means that you are taking an exeptional case in order to make all cases illegal. I believe that the people who are suffering from an addiction should be offered help, and medical treatment.

You said that poor and mostly depressed people would use drugs to get way from reality. I would agree on that, but you are missing the problem itself. The problem itself is not that they are doing drugs. The problem is that they are poor or depressed from the beginning, the drug is only a consequence from poverty and depression.

People usually say: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!
Well? how many reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody think like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!
Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. Simple as that.

The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would never have got as popular as it did. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive drug also went up.

So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it gets for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason for so called Internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.

This is why the war on drugs is failing, people will still get drugs even if it is illegal. But if it were legal, some of them would actually seek help to cure their addiction. If its illegal, then instead of help, we put them in prisons, where there is a higher rate of drugs and criminality then there are out in the real world.

I have a question for you. Does drugs use HAVE to be a bad thing? I know that I would never in my life use any drugs, but if some people can find their happiness in it, who am I to judge?

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”


Hello again,

You claim people can function just fine on drugs? Under the influence of them? People lose control under drugs. It has been proven in studies that drug use leads to depression, which causes higher vulnerability to suicide and self harm. Drugs also cause schizophrenia, and cause irrational behaviour in order to get drugs. People have wasted their entire savings purely to get another high. 1 in 3 adults have done drugs, that is correct; but the reason 1 in 3 adults are not dead or otherwise in a bad way is because they quit. "Drugs" are also a broad term, as I have stated.

Of course, being poor and depressed is a problem. And of course, if they can"t find drugs, they"re going to find another form of escapism. But drugs are the elephant in the room and the most obvious path for them to take. If drugs are legalised, these people who hear about how drugs are the "high of a lifetime" or an "escape from reality" will turn to them, and become addicted.

Few would intentionally go out and do drugs if they were legalised. However, few intentionally smoke or heavily drink despite it being legal to do so; yet they are peer pressured. Or, they are offered it at parties; since everyone around them is doing it, they figure, no harm done. As for the law being an obstacle, it certainly makes it harder to go get drugs. In order to obtain them you need connections, you need to know someone who can set you up. As for tobacco, you just need to walk to your local gas station.

Drug dealers are people who exploit others for gain. While the main reason for cocaine being so popular may have been the high price of cannabis, it was also because cocaine is a stronger high than cannabis, and is more addictive. Thus, customers keep on coming back. Of people I have talked to that used to do drugs, they commonly dismissed cannabis as a "beginner"s drug".

Some would seek to cure their addiction but the hardest step of overcoming addiction is admitting that it is indeed an addiction. Not every meth-addict will admit they have a problem, be it delusion as a cause of drug use or not. As for your question, yes, I would answer drug use is inherently detrimental. It is addictive, causes irrational behaviour, and destroys lives. People might find it as a release, but that doesn"t justify it; that would be hedonism.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm aware of that people cant function as well while high, and I never claimed it either. What I said was, if they can make their lives go around while doing drugs, then why stop them? If they cant however, then I think that they should be offered help. I'm also aware of the harm a drug can do to a man. But that is something that he or she should have to be aware of while buying and taking the drug.

You said "the reason 1 in 3 adults are not dead or otherwise in a bad way is because they quit." see? most of them can make that decision themselves. As stated before, anyone that cant make that decision themselves should be offered help. But now you are making the same argument as before, you admit that in most cases they quit themselves. So you are taking a small exceptional case, and use that as an argument for making all cases illegal.

You said "these people who hear about how drugs are the "high of a lifetime". Don't you think that people are already hearing this? The sellers will use the same methods to trick people into buying drugs no matter if it is legal or not. But the problem is, if it is illegal, regular people wont notice the lies that the sellers use, because they are at the black market when it is illegal.

"As for the law being an obstacle, it certainly makes it harder to go get drugs". Well that's the problem I explained in my last argument. If drugs are harder to get, the price goes up, if the price goes up, the demand for a new, less expensive and more powerful drug will start growing, this effect will boost the development of drugs, and it is the very reason for so called "Internet drugs".

"Drug dealers are people who exploit others for gain" This is only the case if it is illegal. If it is legal however, we can regulate the market in such a way that the buyer has to understand the scientific risks of doing drugs in order to buy them. By then, is it really an exploitation if the buyer is aware of the dangers, is aware of the risks, but still decide that the positives outweighs the negatives for him.

"it was also because cocaine is a stronger high than cannabis" This just proves my last argument, a high drug price leads to new, cheap and potentially more dangerous drugs.

I'm also aware of that only some people would seek help for their addiction, but if someone put himself there, by knowing the risk of an addiction, then it would be his own fault, and he would still be in the same position if it were illegal.

I know I said that I would not bring up the: Its their own choice argument, but yet here it comes
My question for you is: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "ruin their lives" with addiction, "depression", schizophrenia, why are the same people, through voting, qualified to make good decisions with regards to, war, economics, abortion, the death penalty, international trade, schools, immigration, liberties… and yes ironically, if people should be allowed to do drugs or not?
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago
TheoEkman: Where do you get your talking points?


High Times?

The Cannabist?

Maybe the ACLU or maybe the NAACP?

Or maybe the marijuana industry?
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
If someone drives while high, then that person is exposing other people for a risk. Since the driver has not got everyone"s permission to drive while high, then he cant do it. Because the risk that he is exposing others upon is breaking the NAP.
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago

Drugged drivers high on weed have killed innocent people.

If they didn't use drugs before driving while drugged up on weed, then no lives would have been lost because of the weed addicts illegal behavior, right?

Yeah, keep defending the weed users.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
I said "Then I want them to get medical help", I mean that they should be offered medical help.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
I'm defending everyone that is doing drugs, and is capable of handling their own life outside the drugs. Or if the drug users are happy the way it is, then I'm also defending them. But I'm not defending the people who use drugs, and are not capable of handling their life outside of the drugs. Then I want them to get medical help.

People should be able to do whatever they like unless they harm anyone else.
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago
TheoEkman: Are you maybe in a sense defending the illegal weed users drug use around the kids and families, if the "kids and families can handle the drug users illegal drug use going on around the kids and families?

With this point of view?

TheoEkman: "It depends, if they can handle the high then yea sure. But if they cant, then they might risk the safety of the children, and an unnecessary risk to others is an initiation of force, as long as the others have not accepted the risk."
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
It depends, if they can handle the high then yea sure. But if they cant, then they might risk the safety of the children, and an unnecessary risk to others is an initiation of force, as long as the others have not accepted the risk.
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago

When a weed user illegally uses weed around kids and families, their illegal drug use isn't harmful to the kids or the families?
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago

Do you mean this:

The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance that asserts that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1]

In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not forbid forceful defense. The non-aggression principle is considered by some to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism.
Posted by TheoEkman 3 years ago
Freedom involves risk, but it does not involve harming anyone else. The NAP should be the only law that exist. Everyone has the right to do whatever they like, unless they harm someone else.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.