The Instigator
TheoEkman
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
chathura_viraj
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheoEkman
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 503 times Debate No: 112676
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

TheoEkman

Pro

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 <1% of more drug addicts.
chathura_viraj

Con

Ladies & Gentlemen :

Murders are happening these days regularly. so according to proposition side, we should legalize murders. I like to begin the debate by asking a simple question.

Will society be a good one , If we legalize all the illegal / bad things in the society ?

Moving into my stance on this debate

We have serious rules and regulations on drug using these days. Even with these rules, there are many people who take drugs and destroy their selves. So what will happened when we legalize all the drugs? Then the situation will turn from bad to worse. Even the children and the youth will be affected.

In this debate I will prove two things which I call as burdens :

1) Our main goal should be to produce a better ethical and moral society
2) By legalizing bad things can not and will not produce a better society
Debate Round No. 1
TheoEkman

Pro

Hello mister Chathura!

Why would I want to legalize murderer? I believe in the NAP (non-aggression principle). According to the NAP, drugs should be legalized because there is no victim in the "crime". But in murder there is an obvious victim.

"Will society be a good one , If we legalize all the illegal / bad things in the society?" "Even with these rules, there are many people who take drugs and destroy their selves"
Well, does drugs have to be a bad thing? 1 in 3 adults have tried drugs once in their lifetime. I don't think that you believe that 1 in 3 adults have "destroyed their lives", do you? If you don't think that, then it means that you are taking an exceptional and smaller case in order to prove that all cases are bad, which is an extremely bad way to prove a point.

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 have never been popular. 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, and potentially more dangerous 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, cheap, 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.

People usually say: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!
Well, how many people 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.

I want people to seek help if they cant handle drugs themselves. But if they get thrown in prison (where the drug rate is higher than out in the real world), instead of getting medical help, they wont solve their problems.

My question for you is: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "destroy their lives" with drugs or not, 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?
chathura_viraj

Con

Hi & its my pleasure to debate :

Before I would come to my arguments , I will rebut what proposition said :

1) "According to the NAP, drugs should be legalized because there is no victim in the "crime". But in murder there is an obvious victim." - but NAP is already rejected by several philosophers as well as majority of the philosophy. On the other hand, it's ironical to think that no victim involved in drug using. The studies already proved that many drugs are harmful for the human body and it will increase plenty of diseases including heart failures and depression. Those people's lives also in danger. so how can you say those people are not victims of harmful drugs ?

2) "Well, does drugs have to be a bad thing?" - indeed it's a bad thing. it was medically proved already that because of drugs, the diseases of human body would increase as well as it has become a threat to your life. So I don't understand that if something become harmful for human life, then how does it categories as a good thing ? Also that 1 in 3 adults clearly destroying their lives. they might not realize at first, but when they use it again and again as drugs are addicting as well as according to proposition there are no limits, they are getting closer to their end.

3) "The legalization of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs" - if you have limited of doing bad things, you will be controlled by above limits. But it is funny to think when all the limits and laws are gone, you will stop doing bad things. Actually what will happen is that because they don't have any laws or regulations, they can produce cheap & more harmful drugs.

4) When I consider the example of cocaine - It does not matter what drug it is. Majority of drugs are harmful for the human body. Just because the prices are lower or higher doesn't give you an idea whether it is good or bad. Whether it is higher or lower what happen is destroy your body. If you lower the prices of marijuana, then both cocaine and marijuana use will increase. also you cant say marijuana is a good medicine. it also has very vast health effects to the body. ( proved on medical reports)

5) Nobody see the law as an obstacle for drugs.If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "destroy their lives..." - Just because people get decisions on election doesn't mean they made the correct decision. That's my first point. People should be looked after by the government like a father to people. That's why people electing a government. because people cant understand everything regarding their lives and they give their power to government to decide what's best. If you legalize drugs, everyone won't come and do drugs. But no limitations means many people will come & taste it as there are nothing to stop them. Then don't amaze if you see our youth do drugs &lay here & there without doing any work. remember Drugs are addicting
Debate Round No. 2
TheoEkman

Pro

Your response to my 1st, 2nd and 4rth arguments are misleading. I did never claim that drugs are harmless. Drugs are, just as you say, extremely dangerous. But if they are legal, then we can regulate the market in such a way that the buyer is actually aware of the scientific danger of the drug. If he then values the high over the dangers, then no, there is no victim.

If someone values the high over the negatives of a drug, is that "someone" really a victim? No of course not, most of the people doing drugs are capable of handling their lives.

Your 2nd response is claiming that with the legalization, more cheap and more harmful drugs will be created. The answer to that is just no. There would not be a demand for a new and cheap drugs if it were legal. Because the price for the current drugs on the market are so low (thanks to competition) that the company wont spend extra money for researching, and inventing a new drug. Because they wont make money from it, again, because there is no demand for it.

You need to understand that if the current drugs have a high price, then the demand for a new, cheap and potentially more dangerous drug will go up. This is not rocket science, this is simple economics.

"Just because the prices are lower or higher doesn't give you an idea whether it is good or bad" Well no, but I know that if the demand for specifically cheap drugs is high, then the companies will be selling cheap drugs. Cheap drugs mean that the companies wont do a lot of research of the drug. Which mean that it could kill instantly. This is not just me speculating, this is happening, and it is called internet drugs.

"because people cant understand everything regarding their lives and they give their power to government to decide what's best" This is terrifying that people actually believe this. You have your way to live your life, I have my way, but the correct and the only way, it does not exist, and to say that the government get to decide what people can, and can not do with their lives is terrifying. You said that "people cant understand everything about their lives", do you seriously think that the government understand peoples personal lives better than the people themselves?

"no limitations means many people will come & taste it as there are nothing to stop them" Well, would anyone reading this start doing drugs just because they are legal?

The amount of money and of legal energy being given to prosecute hundreds of thousands of americans who are caught with a few ounces of marijuana in their jeans simply makes no sense. It is an outrage, an imposition on basic civil liberties and on the reasonable expenditure of social energy. Just think about the $51 billion each year that the US spend just to make it a bit harder for the drug dealers. Think about the money that we could have earned if it just were legal, taxed and regulated. Just think about the deaths caused by internet drugs, these "investments" are the reason for their deaths.
chathura_viraj

Con

Bad things are happening in the society, when you give the freedom to do those bad things, it will lead the majority to do those bad things more. only thing will happen is that the bad will be legalized. Then doing bad will be normal & common. Just because an act do commonly or normally, doesn't mean it's a good or moral act. If you legalize this, 99% of people will use drugs even without considering where you are.

Drugs are addicting. So if you have no rules to control you means that even though you are a non drug person, You might have an opportunity to test it for once in your life time. If you test it once, you will want it more and more.

Why do we have so many laws to prevent murders and bad things? If legalizing bad things stop the bad thing, then why we are not legalizing murders kidnapping as well as rape? If you legalize the things like drugs & murder, people won't afraid to do those as there are no laws to guide the human behavior which is the soul purpose of having law. Human's internal and external behavior is guiding by the law. If you don't have law means there is nothing to guide your behavior. Then people can behave whatever they like. I am making a point that people are doing things according to emotions most of the times. So law & the government should guide them from bad.

Even the pro: agree that drugs are bad. According to him, drug companies will stop producing drugs when you have demand. It wont happen. They will spread various kind of drugs among people which is easier as people can openly use those drugs. Also I don't clear that what will happen to the drugs like marijuana. In his second speech pro: already accept the use of marijuana which we proved also harmful. So the drugs which has the demand also harmful. So Pro: helps to the people to kill themselves.

I mean even they stop new kind of drug producing, what will happen to the existing drugs? People will use those easily and get killed. Just because you stop producing new varieties, doesn't mean all the drugs are not producing. As you have demand, companies will produce more.

Also when the demand goes high, prices will increase on other drugs. There are nothing like less & more harmful. Harmful means harmful despite the capacity.

"do you seriously think that the government understand peoples personal lives better than the people themselves?"- That's why we have a government. People play with emotions. If you are a motivated American, Emotionally they will say we should attack on North Korea. But government is the one who do what best by considering the situation. That's why we believe paternalism. That's why we are electing a government. Otherwise people will do anything they like.

Internet drugs - We cant think that internet drugs will be lower as no limitations means people will do drugs openly. Don't think about money. Do you want to see your 8 year old boy get drugs when you come out?

There are things in the society you can't minimize by legalizing
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago
TKDB
No comment huh?
Posted by TKDB 3 years ago
TKDB
TheoEkman: Are you maybe pro society, or are you maybe pro illegal drug minded?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
TheoEkmanchathura_viraj
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Vote Placed by Phenenas 3 years ago
Phenenas
TheoEkmanchathura_viraj
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con made faulty comparisons that fell apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Neither used sources, but Pro was at least more careful and made less outrageous claims. He wins.

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