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

The War on Drugs

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 777 times Debate No: 85974
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




This is my first debate so I hope to have an intellectual and mature conversation on this site.

Yes, I am against the War on Drugs that the United States has fought the past few decades. Allow my to explain a few reasons on why I think so.

1.) The war on drugs is a huge reason on why the United States has the biggest prison population in the world. It has not helped rehabilitate much of the population of the United States at all; it has only incarcerated more people which has scarred their records thus they become more trapped in such a lifestyle that got them incarcerated in the first place.

2.) Since more people in the United States are getting incarcerated for acts involving drugs there is less people in the United States willing to supply it due to the risk of imprisonment. This leaves more demand to go towards the suppliers in Mexico which in turn encourages these foreign suppliers to smuggle drugs across the border (there could be other criminal acts done but in general I'm just going to mention smuggling).

3.) Since these suppliers from Mexico get more demand, they in turn get more income thus more power and influence in their territories in Mexico. The more this occurs the more powerful these criminal organizations become in the drug trade and as criminal organizations in general due to income that can be used for anything deemed necessary by and for them.

I believe that all the War on Drugs has done is make the situation worse off. Here is my idea of a step in the right direction...

If it can be executed right, a social program for drug addicts would be more appropriate and probably more effective than simply locking them up after violations of probation. The social program can consist of continuous probation and rehab programs that the individual would eventually have to pay off in currency or community service. If payment in currency is decided yet not completely payed off, then community service can be done to pay off any remaining debts to the state. If the individual keeps the same cycle of drug use going, they're at least funding the state one way or another instead of costing the state money by being imprisoned. Drug use will always be their choice whether incarcerated or not but deeds such as community service may change their life for the better instead of being locked up. Plus, the community service would take up their time of being able to make money elsewhere to support their drug habits and they're only repaying debts to the state. To me, this seems like a start but definitely needs more refinement.

I look forward to a reply, thank you for your time.


I believe the war on drugs is beneficiary as despite what my opponent has said, imagine what would happen if we stopped the war on drugs, the problems would practically ten-fold. Drug cartels would become even more powerful and rich then before due to all their merchandise reaching their desired location with nothing to stop them. People would start supplying drugs in both the US and mexico, meaning the US would have both an external and internal struggle. These two problem would result in lower drug prices due to more supply, meaning more people with access to drugs then before and more people to rehabilitate, resulting in damage to the US economy and an even bigger prison population.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for participating in this debate. You have made some good points but allow me to talk about them.

"Drug cartels would become even more powerful and rich then before due to all their merchandise reaching their desired location with nothing to stop them." - Allow me to go into more detail with my idea. The ones who carry enough quantity of any certain drug (a quantity of enough to be a seller such as a cartel delivery or even a domestic seller) would still be imprisoned instead of going through the social program that I came up with earlier. For selling drugs obviously isn't the same as doing drugs; but possessing them in a small enough of an amount can still be linked to personal possession as it currently is accounted for. Border patrol and preventing drug trafficking would still go on as usual but the punishment for mere drug use and small amounts of possession in general would be changed. So, you still maintain a strict stance on the borders for there is more at risk than just foreign drug suppliers getting into the country (which is starting to lead to another topic so I'll refrain from going into more detail there). Punishments for drug possession and usage would be made less severe thus balancing the ability for domestic suppliers to sell their product instead of foreign suppliers such as cartels because even though these uplifted acts are only on small amounts of drug possession and drug usage the domestic sellers would be able to hide it and sell it easier (for example, not having to cross the border with it) thus making them start selling more. This would reduce money flow to the foreign suppliers but yes the problem here would be now catching more domestic suppliers. However, there has and always will be domestic suppliers so I believe balancing the power scale between the domestic and foreign still damages the cartel's influence and if the problem is more domestic then it could possibly be easier to track the supplier's down despite their ability to hide it well and sell it easier because they're not at risk of being caught by a border patrol.

"People would start supplying drugs in both the US and mexico, meaning the US would have both an external and internal struggle." You're exactly right there. However, from what I just mentioned above in this current comment, the power between the domestic and foreign would be split up more thus competition. The worst that could happen with competition between the two is the prices of what they're selling to out sell the other but still maintain enough income that they desire. These domestic sellers would only work with the cartel if they derived from them and became domestic or another reason though I deem it unlikely is they have to work with them. That's the main issue I see here. However, there would be more competition thus less power for the cartels. Using violence to eliminate each other would result in attention being drawn to them which I'm sure they don't want if their main objective is being a drug supplier. If they ever changed into anything else then I believe that issue is already happening with street gangs in the first place. This in the end gives the police force more justification to arrest drug suppliers and gives them more focus on doing so instead of arresting small time drug possessors and users.

"These two problem would result in lower drug prices due to more supply, meaning more people with access to drugs then before and more people to rehabilitate, resulting in damage to the US economy and an even bigger prison population." Once again, you're right there; yet I'm going to have to build upon this. As I've discussed, the drug prices would decline due to competition for one to outsell the other. People would have more access to drugs but such availability leads to them being able to get caught easier since it's domestic. I believe despite this risk, there would be more seller activity thus more of a chance to retaliate against them instead of them just coming through the borders as usual. The police force could focus more on domestic sellers and foreign sellers instead of mainly just foreign sellers and drug users. The social program I mentioned would be enact, thus giving that chance for people to be treated at a higher rate, but if they fail to pay off any debts by community service and/or payment over time then jail time would be the only solution. I believe this idea would filter out the prison population for there would be less drug users as I would see a fair amount being able to change direction in their life before eventual imprisonment and leaving more room for sellers to be incarcerated. To me, it's best to give the drug users a chance but in doing so you have to give the suppliers a chance. it may not sound good in theory but I believe that it could work.


Great idea you have and thank you for being so respectful, unfortunately this is if the war of drugs should continue or not, not how if we stop the war of drugs what we can do for the potential issues.
Debate Round No. 2


Indeed, it's not that I'm completely against the war on drugs, but how it is currently being done. I thank you once again for your participation in this debate. This debate is now over and for your turn you can simply extend the discussion to end it if you like.


Cool, well GG
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
Tbh the war on drugs has like no support nowadays I am curious as to what arguments supporting it would be.
No votes have been placed for this debate.