Instigator / Pro
1
1538
rating
11
debates
81.82%
won
Topic
#4549

All psychoactive substances should be legalized to be sold to adults as alcohol and nicotine are.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
0

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Mps1213
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
This argument is controversial, mainly because people approach this topic in a very non-scientific way. I think it has to do with media, bad science and awful journalism. Drugs are inanimate objects, conglomerates of Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen.  They are not some object that hops out of their bag and into our bloodstream. 

When we are talking about drug deaths it’s important to ask many questions. 1: how many substances were in the system? The average number of psychoactive substances found in drug deaths in 4-6. The next question needs to be: do any of these substances bring greater risks to the user when combined? 3: was the person aware these substances were risky to combine? 4:  did the person even know they took so many substances. 

These questions are of serious importance, the last 2 being the most important by far. Let’s say this person who died was being completely irresponsible and combining multiple substances at once and he didn’t know what was dangerous to mix. That is 100% an education issue. People use drugs every day without dying, in fact most drug users do not even have addiction. That has been proven by the work of a chairman on the National Institute of Health, Dr. Carl Hart from Columbia university. His work came to the conclusion that 80-90% of drug users in the US do not have addiction or use drugs irresponsibly. He himself an accomplished pharmacologist uses heroin and is open about it. He’s able to use heroin safely because he is very educated on how the drug works, how not to develop addiction, how to stay safe. All the way back in the 1890’s there were studies done with diacetylmorphine (heroin), heroin is simply a modified morphine molecule to have acetyl bonds at the top left and bottom right of the molecule. Making it more polar, which leads to higher potency. Not higher addictive potential.

The studies in the 1890’s I mentioned have to do with tolerance and addictive potential. Even back then they knew about tolerance and addiction, yet were able to work with the drug without causing withdrawal or huge tolerance build ups:  A doctor treated 48 different patients that were dealing with various things heroin could treat. He was one of the first people to record a tolerance in his patients. I am going to quote his findings here, this was written after he had to increase the dosage on his patients. “No harmful results, especially as I observed no abstinence symptoms whatsoever. Generally it appeared that in all cases in which period of time was allowed to elapse the full effect could again be obtained with small doses ... It may be concluded that, regarding tolerance to heroin, certain individuals react peculiarly and it is recommended that in the case of old and feeble persons, the initial dose should not be over 0.005 g.”(Taurnier, 1899)
 No abstinence symptoms is referring to withdrawal. My point here is that we have known a long time hire to properly use drugs of all kinds, including heroin. It just takes education.

When I say addiction, the definition is compliant with the DSM-5 definition of substance use disorder. This does not mean the person simply uses a drug regularly, or even every day. That is not what addiction is. To be diagnosed with substance use disorder the person must meet certain criteria. The criteria are that they have tried to quit many times and can't, they face withdrawals when trying to quit, and that the use of the drug is disrupting their life.  Without those three things happening in unison, the diagnosis of substance use disorder will not happen. Withdrawal is not the only determining factor of addiction, neither is prevalence of use. Someone can use heroin every day and not be considered an addict if they are meeting their societal expectation. Meaning, they don't miss work, they take care of their kids, they pay their taxes, they aren't committing crimes. Just like someone can drink alcohol every day and not be an addict. Many people I've spoken to, and interviewed for a book I am currently writing on this topic, have a large disconnect between how they view the drugs they enjoy, and the drugs they consider 'bad.' They think drinking alcohol every day or smoking cannabis every day is somehow more morally right or healthy than using meth or heroin every day. Even though adderall (amphetamine, which is methamphetamine minus one carbon hydrogen bond) is prescribed to be taken daily and millions of people do so with little to no side effects. 

Drug users like Dr. Carl hart and myself would never mix an opioid with a benzodiazepine or alcohol or antihistamines or any other CNS depressant. Because it is well recorded that mixing opioids with depressant greatly increases the chances of respiratory depression and death. if someone is not educated in that they can get into trouble quickly. 

Now let’s talk about question 4. Not many people are aware of this. There is a website called Drugsdata.org You can send your drug sample into their lab and they will test it and put the results on the website. Keep in mind there is a lot of bias in the results simply because the drug users sending their samples in for testing are very very responsible drug users and not junkies who don’t have the money to spend on these tests. 

I’m going to list the results of the first 2 samples tested for heroin that pop up. 

Sample 1:

  • Caffeine
  • Xylazine
  • Fentanyl
  • 4-ANPP
  • 4-Fluorofentanyl
  • Heroin
  • Phenethyl 4-ANPP

This was sold as heroin. I’m gonna break this down very simply. The IV LD50 in mice is 21.797mg/kg. It is not as simple as taking that at applying the mg/kg to your own body weight a conversion must be done to account for different metabolic rates and surface areas. The conversion factor with mice is to divide the dose by 12.3, or multiply it by .081. This will put the LD50 for humans at 1.77mg/kg.
For a 150 pound person they would have to take 122.4 mg of heroin to reach the lethal dose for the average user their weight. To put that into perspective even the heaviest users consider 25mg injected a heavy heavy dose. So essentially no one is taking that dose. But, that lethal average dose drops dramatically when mixed with other substances as I said early but that’s not the point I’m making right now. 

After the conversion is done the human LD50 for fentanyl rests at .47mg/kg. Compared to heroin’s LD50 by IV sitting at 1.8mg/kg it’s easy to see why this would be an extremely dangerous combination. An average 150 pound male only has to take 31mg of fentanyl to reach lethal doses. A heavy dose of heroin is 25mg. Some addicts take more. When mixing these two substances the LD50 for both drop significantly making it only take one bad batch to kill people. 

4-ANPP, phenethyl 4-ANPP and 4-flourofentanyl are precursors to fentanyl that are used for synthesis which brings me to another point. Street chemists do not know what they’re doing. Do you remember the famous Krokadil drug scare? A drug in Russia people injected and it caused profound necrosis. Well it turns out, as it always does, that the drug was not the problem. The problem was street chemists not getting the chemicals used for synthesis out of their final product. One of the chemicals used for synthesis of the drug desomorphine (the drug krokadil actually was which is still used medicinally all over the world) is phosphorus. So we weren’t looking at the effects of any drug but instead the result of injecting phosphorus into your veins. Professional chemists do not make these mistakes.

Xylazine is a veterinarian anesthetic usually used of felines. 

if anyone used this product, they likely died. Hopefully the user was patient enough for the website to post the results before using, and didn't give it to someone else.

sample #2



  • Fentanyl
  • Xylazine
  • 4-ANPP
  • 4-Fluorofentanyl
  • Despropionyl-4-fluorofentanyl
  • Phenethyl 4-ANPP
Again the presence of precursors is present in this product. This was sold as heroin, it doesn't even have heroin in it. 

If anyone used this product they likely died. 

So this brings me to my final point. If we legalized all substances you would be able to go into a dispensary and buy pure heroin or any other drug you like to use. It would also get rid of close to 75% of people in jail on simple possession charges. Drug use is dangerous, to say that’s not true is to lie, cannabis has risks, caffeine has risks, heroin and fentanyl have risks. But our government is actively making it more dangerous by their laws and enforcement. Danger isn’t even the point in my opinion. Adults in this country are free to do all sorts of things, shoot guns, race cars, cliff dive, sky dive, etc. we just assume adults embarking on those tasks are aware of the risks before hand and are making their own decision to do these activities. Drug use should be no different. There will still be addicts and still be idiots who kill themselves. But if we re design our drug education to not be about abstinence from drug use and actually tell young people bad adults about what makes them dangerous and how to lower the risks as much as possible a lot less of that would happen. If we treat drug education like modern sex education which is basically “we know you’re going to have sex, this is how you do it safely” it would save many lives. 

Our government also has a history of actively poisoning drug users. during alcohol prohibition the government played a hand in poisoning, or at least allowing bootleggers to poison a percentage of their illegal alcohol and avoid arrest, that led to over 10,000 deaths. In the 80's under President Raegan the American military used helicopters to spray cannabis fields in Mexico and Georgia with a potent neurotoxin called Paraquat. When ingested, paraquat causes the permanent onset of Parkinson's syndrome. Luckily Paraquat breaks down at high temperatures, so it doesn't seem like anyone was affected. but they still tried!

Con
#2
All psychoactive substances should not be legal as there was no process done to legalize all of them.

Just like killing someone unjustly or illegally shouldn't be legal as there is no law to state it is legal.

To unpack that further, there should not be any legality here because there was no governmental process here to make legality. That's because there was no rally, administration, petition, consensus or vote by the people that would be based on perhaps moral values that would and should create passing a bill to make legality.

The conclusive summary from the opposing side is a consistent "done safely".

The issue comes in the addiction to where the risk ends up throwing out safety boundaries. Furthermore, any amount of at least one psychoactive substance is damaging.

When dealing with cocaine , it brings about cardiovascular issues which escalate to stroke and brain seizures. 

Whether it's chronic use or casual use, it's no good for the body. 

You can read up about this from the article " Is Your Casual Cocaine Use Dangerous?" published by Mark Shrayber.

I'm not using this as a basis to build up my position. It's already been established about what should and shouldn't be. 

But being you're trying to make a case for what should be based on safety, we have consistency issues.




Round 2
Pro
#3
You’re argument is wrong on many levels. First off the whole “there was no rally…” argument is astoundingly weird. I’m not saying there was a rally, or a vote, or anything like that. What I am saying is that our society would benefit from having all psychoactive substances legalized and sold through dispensaries. 

You saying all use of psychoactive substances is damaging is utterly absurd. Methamphetamine is prescribed to tens of thousands of people under the name brand Desoxyn. Amphetamine is prescribed to millions of people to be taken daily under the name brand adderall. The vast majority of people who are prescribed these substances never face any severe side effects or are diagnosed with addiction. Ketamine is an FDA cleared treatment for Treatment resistent depression. Ketamine is also an FDA cleared anesthetic. You are making these claims as if they are a given, when you are completely wrong. 

If you want to talk about reading books why don’t you read a couple books by people with PhDs in pharmacology like Drug use for grown ups by Dr. Carl Hart. Of course cocaine use can be dangerous, no one is disputing that. So can alcohol use, are you going to advocate for making alcohol illegal? It kills more people than every other drug but tobacco combined. 

Why do alcohol users get a pass? Why are they able to freely engage in their dangerous drug use? Why don’t they have to risk going to prison, dying from contamination, having their lives ruined with a drug charge, but I have to risk all of those things if I want to use Oxycodone one weekend. 

Opioids are much safer drugs than alcohol toxicologically and statistically. If you’d like to dive into exactly why that’s the case and the pharmacological reason for it, we can. All drugs have risks, literally all of them, caffeine included. We allow people to consume enough sugar to kill themselves, we allow people to readily purchase alcohol which leaves a toxic metabolite in your system that poisons you the next day. We allow people to smoke tobacco even though that kills more than all other drugs combined. Yet cocaine is where you draw the line? Why? Because it can be dangerous? So can riding motorcycles, climbing mountains, etc. 

We live in a free country, I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not preventing others from doing so. 

If you want to actually talk the drugs and why they should be legalized and why you’re simply wrong that they’re inherently damaging we can. 

You’re response was incredibly underwhelming. I’m not talking about the actual political process of passing a law. I’m talking about doing what is right in this particular situation and giving reasons why all of those things you based your argument off of should happen. 
Con
#4
"What I am saying is that our society would benefit from having all psychoactive substances legalized and sold through dispensaries. "

If there's such a benefit as you say, why are these substances illegal?

Why was there an era called "just say no"?

Just short and sweet. I'm not looking for an essay of an explanation.

"You saying all use of psychoactive substances is damaging is utterly absurd. "

I don't have to say all. I just know legalizing all use of them would include cocaine which I underlined an example of.

"You are making these claims as if they are a given, when you are completely wrong. 

Quote me where I claimed anything specifically about each type of drug which you refer to as a psychoactive substance .

"If you want to talk about reading books why don’t you read a couple books by people with PhDs in pharmacology like Drug use for grown ups by Dr. Carl Hart."

Maybe some other time. Right now I have enough to throw out your position.

"Of course cocaine use can be dangerous, no one is disputing that. "

Not can be, it is. It's illegal. 

"So can alcohol use, are you going to advocate for making alcohol illegal? "

I could. Just as society did . That's why there was a prohibition. But what happens? We have these arguments made from positions like yours to reinstate, decriminalize things by folks for other folks that got no business getting involved.

"It kills more people than every other drug but tobacco combined. "

Well there you go. You got no business making it legal.

"Why do alcohol users get a pass? Why are they able to freely engage in their dangerous drug use? Why don’t they have to risk going to prison, dying from contamination, having their lives ruined with a drug charge, but I have to risk all of those things if I want to use Oxycodone one weekend. "

Good questions for your backwards half stepping government. They make things illegal for detrimental reasons,then turn around and legalize them again while other things similar are left illegal. Then eventually the outcry and push of an influential agenda cuts the ban such as with marijuana .

"Yet cocaine is where you draw the line? Why? Because it can be dangerous? "

I'm not drawing the line there. It's an example I'm just using for this topic. I can go on and on as you have done attempting to make a comprehensive exhaustive list of all these different things. But I cut it simple at coke for instance or crack cocaine.

The topic is about all so that would include coke. Just looking at coke alone, it's not "can be", it is dangerous, detrimental, not healthy for the body at all. It serves no ounce of nourishment. I understand it's a recreational pleasure like how sex and orgies are used. That's what all these drugs, psychoactive and whatnot come down to. Not life sustaining drugs as they're called. I don't believe life sustaining ones are a part of the topic. It appears from the government, it's a double standard. We have cigarettes. Why can't society enjoy heroin legally as cigarettes?

The government could stand an all or nothing policy really. The drugs, the chemicals in foods. But the way I see it, at least they try to do something right. They make SOME things illegal. They just have more work to do, abortion....LGBT rights...and ..well I digress.

It's clear the focus is more if not solely on money and a society lasting long enough to perpetuate an economy. In this case , pleasure sells more than health. We're more of a pleasure seeking people than health conscious. But really, the epicenter is health at a universal level.

So for instance dealing with coke, dealing, snorting coke, you can't name one health benefit to expand life.

"So can riding motorcycles, climbing mountains, etc. "

Yeah yeah so can anything. As soon as you exist you face the possibility of something dangerous like pregnancy termination. Let's just drive this right back to center. We're talking about illegal drugs. Conflating and homogenizing will not rule in justification.


"We live in a free country, I should be able to pursue happiness however I see fit as long as I’m not preventing others from doing so. "

You should be able according to you and if you're caught doing something illegal, receive the penalty. Even when it's just done upon yourself. The law is the law. 

Being that this is the case, I'd advise caution around the terms "free country".


"I’m talking about doing what is right in this particular situation and giving reasons why all of those things you based your argument off of should happen. "

Do you even know what "right " is? How do you know what's right?

What standard are you using and according to who or what?

How do you determine what right is while others fail to do so , namely those others in government?

These are the questions you got to have the answers to bringing this matter before a supreme court, going before the government. 

You say you're talking about doing what is right and you're position is that all of these things are to be legalized. So that would mean, the government is wrong for having them currently illegal. You're going to have to convince the government that you have greater justification.

Somehow the way you see it, the standard you use is Right, theirs is wrong. 

I'm afraid you're reasoning is going to destroy society completely or influence it to be healthier.

If you'd petition and many others like your stance, petition the government to legalize all these drugs, it'll up the risk , probability and death of many societal members .

We already have plenty of drug overdoses now. We've been having them down threw history. Both famous and not as well known. This is just by having access and these drugs existing while being illegal to use. So imagine, extrapolate the amperage of adversity once legalized.

Now you demonstrate your case to the court, they see the inconsistency with the freedom of drug usage and remove the ban across the board.

Then, alternatively the flip side to demonstrating your case, they see the inconsistency of promoting a health welfare enriched society and ban everything in terms of "psychoactive drugs"and anything remotely or distant , indirectly/directly related such as basic unnecessary chemicals in food. It'll be no more about trying to make a sale with preserving the shelf life of goods over the optimal health.

So your case could go in your favor to pretty much our own demise or could backfire to our flourishing.

Now you can take the attitude of "well, let me destroy myself, it's my business, I'm not hurting anyone else".

You don't have to destroy other people for a people to be destroyed. Each individual collectively can take your attitude "I'm doing it to myself, no one else" and still accomplish mass destruction via self destruction.

Besides the crack era, to date there has been an increase of overdosing with it being illegal. Imagine being legallllll. No pun intended, why the overkill? This is because of addiction. That is why I said earlier, the "doing it safely" crap is instantly thrown out because whether you know it or not , accept or not, the drug controls you.

All these drug related crimes and violence, if it's not the money , it's the drugs that are the enslaving masters.
 
So what is right or what does it mean when something is right, how do you know? How's it right?

You're arguing about doing what is right.

In regards to that which is right, what makes legalizing all drugs to include crack rock make it that?













Round 3
Pro
#5
Ok, my opponent is apparently very good at making claims without researching anything. First off the most absurd approach he takes is that everything has to “expand life” which just isn’t true. Safety doesn’t ultimately matter. If we want to live in a free country, which he apparently doesn’t want, safety just isn’t the point. Freedom is the most important thing, not safety. I don’t mean freedom in the wannabe libertarian try to be radical way. 

I mean freedom because this freedom is incredibly important. My opponent has done nothing to actually combat anything I’ve said with any amount of evidence, just making claims. So, I will address some of them but I’ll ask him to address this next point.

The reason the freedom to possess and use drugs is important is because our government and law enforcement uses drugs, all the time, to abuse people. From law enforcement planting evidence after they’ve brutalized someone, cops using drugs as an excuse to kill people, to our government convicting people of murder and sentencing them to life in prison solely because they’re drug users. There are thousands of examples of this. I’ll just list a few. 
 A pair of officers in New York were caught by their own body cams planting cannabis in someone’s car twice. Why did they do this? Because they assaulted and abused the people and had to have a ‘valid’ excuse as to why. One of the people they assaulted had just gotten out of the hospital from being stabbed in the stomach. The officers asked him to step out of the vehicle, and he told him about the injury and that he didn’t want to move. The man felt there was no cause for him to be stepping out of his vehicle. 
The two officers yanked open the door, pulled the man out, and slammed him on the ground while he was screaming in pain. He was sent back to the hospital because he began bleeding profusely from his newly stitched wound. A couple minutes afterwards the two officers can be heard saying “we need to find something” while searching the car. After finding no drugs in the car or any evidence for drug use. They stepped away and said they found nothing. One of the officers went back into the vehicle, looked in a place he already searched, and tried to slyly drop a nugget of cannabis in the cup holder. However, the body cam footage caught it. 
They still arrested the couple for drug possession and the man was sent to jail after the hospital. The two cops are still on patrol today and faced no consequences, even though they’ve done it twice, and ruined a man’s life and arguably almost killed him.

There is a famous case of an Army doctor in Fort Bragg, who claims he had three people break into his house and the people were chanting “kill the pigs, acid is groovy, kill the pigs, acid is groovy” and destroyed his entire family. This took place just after the first Manson murders. Since he was the only one left alive they arrested him and sent him to trial. The responders did not believe his story. The prosecution was having problems establishing a motive, so they had to create one. The motive they came up with? He had a prescription for amphetamine. It must have been the amphetamine that made him go crazy and massacre his entire family. His testimony about the people entering his house was never accepted. Even though he was bloody, had stab wounds, and was bruised himself. His pregnant wife (third child on the way) was stabbed 16 times with a kitchen knife and 21 times with an ice pick. Both of her arms were broken. Kimberly, his 5 year old daughter was bludgeoned and stabbed in the neck. His 2 year old daughter Kristen was stabbed 48 times. Jeffrey, the army doctor and green beret, was sent to the hospital with stab wounds and a punctured lung. It is no wonder that a green beret survived the barrage and likely gave them a severe beating and scared them off.
Yet he was convicted of the murders and sent to prison for life for the murder of his family members. Solely based off the fact he had an amphetamine prescription. This is what happens when our government uses drugs to explain every bad thing that happens. There was no motive, he was injured himself, but he had amphetamine in his system. They completely decimated a man’s reputation, ruined his life again after he just lost everything, solely on the fact he was a drug user. The man died in prison. 

Even though my opponent clearly isn’t an advocate for freedom he should certainly be able to have the awareness that this isn’t acceptable. However, given his backwards, life meddling, absurd, probably regurgitated, “I’m cool because I’m radical views” on other topics like abortion and gay rights, he probably will find some weird reason to excuse this type of behavior from our government. 

“If there's such a benefit as you say, why are these substances illegal?

Why was there an era called "just say no"?

Because of people like you, believing they are in the position to even say a word about a topic they know nothing about. You know nothing about pharmacology, toxicology, pharmacokinetics, etc. yet you think these simplistic points are enough to convince someone they’re wrong about a topic they’ve dedicated years of their life to studying. You haven’t, you’re too busy arguing about things that don’t concern you, like the rights of others, than actually studying a topic you’re willing to accept a debate about. 

The main reason cocaine is illegal in particular is because of racist white people saying cocaine caused blacks to become to more violent towards white women. Officers tried to claim that cocaine made black people impervious to .38 caliber bullets and asked if they could have bigger weapons to shoot them with. Does that sound familiar? Like the myth that PCP causes violence or makes people be able to walk through bullets. The fact you want a “short and sweet answer” tells me everything I need to know. You don’t have the capacity for complex thought on a complex topic and need your information boiled down to something a second grader could read. Which is why people like you should stay away from scientific topics. I wouldn’t be being this rude if you were actually taking the information seriously instead of making backwards, stupid claims you have no business making. 

There’s a reason Dr. Carl Hart, a chairman on the NIH, a man who has been granted hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct studies with these drugs on humans, has come to the same conclusion I have. It’s because his studies have shown that the vast majority of people who use psychoactive drugs, actually never face any problems from their drug use and benefit greatly from it. 

“Quote me where I claimed anything specifically about each type of drug which you refer to as a psychoactive substance .”

I didn’t say you did, what I was talking about was your claim that cocaine is only harmful, which you made again in this argument. Cocaine is not only harmful. Plain and simple. It doesn’t do anything harmful to the brain unless someone abuses the drug. Which is statistically rare. You do realize that cocaine has been used for thousands of years right? By many cultures be used it exists naturally in coca plant. Many people still use this leaf as a mean Of consuming the drug. It’s a relatively benign drug, especially compared to something like tobacco or alcohol. All it does is block dopamine transport so dopamine stays on the receptor longer, as well as releasing a little bit of norepinephrine. What about that is incredibly harmful and only has negatives? Many drugs people take on a daily basis: Amphetamine, methylphenidate, Vivanse, focalin, etc. all Dona very similar thing to the brain. There are every slight differences in the pharmacology of these drugs but ultimately achieve the same thing. Luckily these drugs are much better at achieving this effect. So the effects can last hours, instead of about 30 minutes as cocaine does. Do you really think medical professionals would be prescribing drugs that do these things if they were only harmful as you claim? No, of course they wouldn’t. Do you think our government would be granting the NIH hundreds of millions to give thousands of doses of cocaine to humans if they only caused harm the way you claim? No of course they wouldn’t. 

“Not can be, it is. It's illegal.” 

Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. It’s illegal to divorce your husband if you’re a pregnant woman in many states, does that mean it’s an inherently dangerous and deadly thing? Obviously not. You need to think a little bit harder about the stuff you say so you don’t come across as a simple minded fool. 

“Just looking at coke alone, it's not "can be", it is dangerous, detrimental, not healthy for the body at all. It serves no ounce of nourishment. I understand it's a recreational pleasure like how sex and orgies are used. That's what all these drugs, psychoactive and whatnot come down to.” 

Is that why cocaine is still used in surgeries and prescribed for cluster head aches? Because it’s useful for orgies, come on man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Is that why morphine, oxycodone, Amphetamine, etc are still prescribed to millions of people? Because it’s useful in orgies? That’s really the only benefit these drugs have? That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. 

I’ll give you a personal anecdote. I use opioids very often. They have improved my quality of life dramatically. I have two herniated discs, I live in pain, and they relieve that pain. However, they also make me a better, more understanding parent. They make me a better son, partner, student, worker, etc. they make more empathetic, more loving, etc. So you’re going to try and tell someone who not only has a very technical science based understanding of these drugs, but also a ton of personal experience what they are useful for? Of course you are, because that’s what ignorant people do. 







Con
#6
Glad to entertain. Who says you can't enjoy something while you're learning?

Just a side note to the audiences and masses .

"First off the most absurd approach he takes is that everything has to “expand life” which just isn’t true. Safety doesn’t ultimately matter. "

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is according to who or what?

It's apparent you're coming out of a nihilistic position. I'm sorry to break it to you but we just don't have a government like that to wipe us all out. Evidently there has and will be some constraints to enable some health guidelines and safety.

Therefore we have the FDA, the police and traffic lights and self defense laws. Do you want to say I'm claiming that too or is this something you want to admit this time as existing for you to see for yourself?

The masses are right. This gets pretty laughable.

"If we want to live in a free country, which he apparently doesn’t want, safety just isn’t the point."

No offense but this is pretty ignorant. We'll have to have safety enter the equation at some point because it'll require boundaries to sustain us. This is why prescriptions are required. We have speed limits, legal age limits and requirements. Like I told you, be careful about using the terms "free country". It doesn't mean going off all willy nilly to do anything to your hedonistic goals. "Free country" with a country of laws. Really think now.

"Freedom is the most important thing, not safety. I don’t mean freedom in the wannabe libertarian try to be radical way. "

See now you're getting sloppy with your points. Trying to backpedal now because you inevitably will run into all these problems.

We're suppose to have a civilization. We're struggling to have one now because of crime , some related to ILLEGAL drug use.

Does anyone with points such as I'm getting want to vote that person into office?

A person can claim they don't have libertarian values.

So now what, you want to draw the line somewhere, is that right?

Just as I do but somehow yours is more justified by throwing out safety making statements such as "Freedom is the most important thing, not safety".

Let me ask, do you also advise this to children?

If not, you're inconsistent and hypocritical.

"My opponent has done nothing to actually combat anything I’ve said with any amount of evidence, just making claims. "

You haven't pointed to anything I've stated that is not true. That's why you haven't given at least one example.

"The reason the freedom to possess and use drugs is important is because our government and law enforcement uses drugs, all the time, to abuse people. From law enforcement planting evidence after they’ve brutalized someone, cops using drugs as an excuse to kill people, to our government convicting people of murder and sentencing them to life in prison solely because they’re drug users. There are thousands of examples of this. I’ll just list a few. "

This is coming off like an anarchist argument. You're attempting to give a justification for freedom of destruction really based on the corrupt portions of so called law enforcement. This is just a lousy excuse to grant hedonistic agendas to the individual at the cost of their health.

I'm telling you with this kind of thinking, all these things that go on while drugs like these are illegal, end times for any society anywhere draw even nearer.

We got to have law and order somewhere. We have restrictive laws on drugs to have some type of society. The number of D.U.I.'s that occur and manslaughter cases , this exists while operating the legal limit to drive. Even with restrictions and legal penalties, the numbers a year in fatalities, just extrapolate. 

The opposing side on this topic has yet to demonstrate why the supreme court would hear them out on thinking we be better off legalizing all drug usage. Oh because of freedom. Newsflash, you and others can't have total freedom. You'll destroy yourselves before you knew what happened.

"Free country". Wake up and smell that strong black coffee. 

"Even though my opponent clearly isn’t an advocate for freedom he should certainly be able to have the awareness that this isn’t acceptable. "

Long story short, I sympathize about your feelings on the officers that did what they did. However because of their wrongdoing and brutal force, the government is not going to enable you to brutalize yourself with poison .

"Because of people like you, believing they are in the position to even say a word about a topic they know nothing about. You know nothing about pharmacology, toxicology, pharmacokinetics, etc. yet you think these simplistic points are enough to convince someone they’re wrong about a topic they’ve dedicated years of their life to studying. You haven’t, you’re too busy arguing about things that don’t concern you, like the rights of others, than actually studying a topic you’re willing to accept a debate about. "

Ohhh, talk is cheap so you prove alllll these drugs, alllll this psychoactive trash is healthy for us including for newborns to take. Nobody including the government has been given a flake of proof that they alllll provide one single health benefit.

You don't see anybody politically rallying against spinach and whole grains. Yes to the five major food groups or whatever. Just say NO to these drugs on the street.

"The main reason cocaine is illegal in particular is because of racist white people saying cocaine caused blacks to become to more violent towards white women. "

Then you're pushing to legalize it. What kind of country do you want? This topic ought to reveal the image of what a free free country would look like to you. Way worse but if you're nihilistic, it doesn't matter like you say safety doesn't matter.


" I wouldn’t be being this rude if you were actually taking the information seriously instead of making backwards, stupid claims you have no business making. "

You can be rude all you want. You haven't said anything here to move me or the government here to change anything based on your arguments. My so called , so called claims, so called, sides with the government. Apparently they're in my position because they have not made all these drug usages legal.

"I didn’t say you did, what I was talking about was your claim that cocaine is only harmful, which you made again in this argument. Cocaine is not only harmful. Plain and simple. It doesn’t do anything harmful to the brain unless someone abuses the drug. "

Ok prove the health benefits of it and why the government has not made using coke legal like consuming spinach.

"Which is statistically rare."

"Statistically rare " is not good enough my apparently less knowledgeable but nihilistic friend.

"You do realize that cocaine has been used for thousands of years right? By many cultures be used it exists naturally in coca plant. "

Let us not conflate here. What is illegal is the drug concocted from the leaves adding all the chemicals and hazardous junk. We're not talking about the sole use of any damn leaves of a plant.

"Many people still use this leaf as a mean Of consuming the drug. It’s a relatively benign drug, especially compared to something like tobacco or alcohol. "

Stop the conflating. We're not talking about NATURAL sources. We're talking about these illegal drugs and you know that. This is disingenuous of you and it's moving the goal post.

"Do you really think medical professionals would be prescribing drugs that do these things if they were only harmful as you claim? No, of course they wouldn’t."

My claim is what's legal is legal. So that be a claim to a fact. You the one that has to demonstrate to me just like if you were before the court, why should I make for instance cocaine usage legal.

"Do you think our government would be granting the NIH hundreds of millions to give thousands of doses of cocaine to humans if they only caused harm the way you claim? No of course they wouldn’t. "

Cocaine usage is illegal. Why?

Just that simple.

"Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. It’s illegal to divorce your husband if you’re a pregnant woman in many states, does that mean it’s an inherently dangerous and deadly thing? Obviously not. You need to think a little bit harder about the stuff you say so you don’t come across as a simple minded fool. "

I don't know why you're sticking to the term "dangerous", but anything and everything is illegal that disrupts, hinders or makes some kind of adversity on society in some way . You just have to think at a deeper level than what you have been to learn what way it is.


"Is that why cocaine is still used in surgeries and prescribed for cluster head aches? "

Used how, in WHAT FORM? See I detect conflation again and I have to keep that in check, that's all.

" Is that why morphine, oxycodone, Amphetamine, etc are still prescribed to millions of people? Because it’s useful in orgies? "

I don't think any of this is coke. See I'm trying to stick to one thing to help you from going all over the place. 

"That’s really the only benefit these drugs have? That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. "

What's the health benefit in snorting coke?

That's what we're waiting on from you . Farfetched to argue it heals the nostrils.

"So you’re going to try and tell someone who not only has a very technical science based understanding of these drugs, but also a ton of personal experience what they are useful for? Of course you are, because that’s what ignorant people do. "

As long as your not snorting coke, you won't get busted for that. 

So bottom line, you are to prove that being strung out on coke, then getting dragged to the rehabilitation centers like Pookie is good and healthy for the society. The government has ruled the usage of this substance illegal because of these horror stories. The bright side is people get clean but we want to avoid this altogether .















Round 4
Pro
#7
My opponent clearly just doesn’t have the ability to grasp the complexity of this topic.

“Therefore we have the FDA, the police and traffic lights and self defense laws. Do you want to say I'm claiming that too or is this something you want to admit this time as existing for you to see for yourself?”

Yes exactly the government passes regulations to make dangerous things as safe as possible. That’s all I’m saying they need to do for drugs. Because the FDA has already cleared 90% of the drugs people use illegally. Methamphetamine, cocaine, Amphetamine, ketamine, psilocybin, the list goes on. Currently buying them off the streets is very dangerous simply because there are no regulations. You are literally making my point for me. yet you’re too blinded by trying to be right you can’t even see that. 

“No offense but this is pretty ignorant. We'll have to have safety enter the equation at some point because it'll require boundaries to sustain us. This is why prescriptions are required. We have speed limits, legal age limits and requirements. Like I told you, be careful about using the terms "free country". It doesn't mean going off all willy nilly to do anything to your hedonistic goals. "Free country" with a country of laws. Really think now.” 

Once again, making my point for me. The drug market needs to be regulated, not banned to keep them as safe as possible. When I say “safety doesn’t matter” that means that just because certain things are dangerous does not mean they need to be banned. On every other topic, the government agrees me. Motorcycles, sky diving, wing suit jumping, drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco. I’m not sure how you’re not seeing my point considering I’ve said many times. You’re just willfully ignoring it. 

“We're suppose to have a civilization. We're struggling to have one now because of crime , some related to ILLEGAL drug use.”

This is simply not true, name me one thing that didn’t exist before drugs and is only caused by illegal drug use. Can’t be addiction, can’t be death, can’t be poverty, can’t be job loss, can’t be abusive parents. All of that existed before illegal drugs or exists with legal drugs. You’re not making sense man. 

“Let me ask, do you also advise this to children?”

Of course I would not advise children to take drugs. Just like I wouldn’t advise children to drive cars or ride motorcycles until they’re at an age, and educated enough to do those things safely. that doesn’t make me a hypocrite that makes me rational. This again is an example of you trying to boil this conversation down to “gotcha” points and it’s absurd. 

“You haven't pointed to anything I've stated that is not true. That's why you haven't given at least one example.”

I have actually pointed to many things you’ve said aren’t true, like your cocaine claims, you just ignore them. You also haven’t combatted anything I’ve said about the data surrounding drug addiction, the data to suggest drug contamination is what is causing these deaths not the drugs alone. 

“This is coming off like an anarchist argument. You're attempting to give a justification for freedom of destruction really based on the corrupt portions of so called law enforcement. This is just a lousy excuse to grant hedonistic agendas to the individual at the cost of their health.”

Not true at all. First off you’re assuming drugs being legal will cause destruction, and pretending what I just listen isn’t. It’s not anarchist even in the slightest, I’m literally calling on the government to regulate this market to make drug use as safe as possible. Which you apparently have had a hard time understanding even though I stated that clearly in round one. 

“The opposing side on this topic has yet to demonstrate why the supreme court would hear them out on thinking we be better off legalizing all drug usage. Oh because of freedom. Newsflash, you and others can't have total freedom. You'll destroy yourselves before you knew what happened.”

No that’s not at all what I’m saying man, you’re just straw manning my argument. It’s not just freedom. It’s reducing the number of deaths, reducing the number of families ripped apart by drug charges. Reducing the number of people arrested every year simply for possessing drugs, which is over 1,000,000 people. Reducing the number of excuses law enforcement can have to abuse people, potentially reducing the number of drug users, as has been seen in Portugal when they took a similar approach to this. Reducing the prevalence of aids and HIV being spread by dirty needles, as has also been seen in portugal. You aren’t even reading my arguments. 

“However because of their wrongdoing and brutal force, the government is not going to enable you to brutalize yourself with poison .”

Again you are calling drugs poison even though most of them are cleared by the FDA, used in a regular basis in a healthy responsible way that never harms the user. You are using these negative terms to try and make yourself feel better about your ignorance on a topic you know nothing about. Do you really think our government would be allowing millions of people to take these drugs legally through prescription if they were poison? Of course not. Do you really think grants would be given to give thousands of doses of drugs like heroin, cocaine, PCP, to humans if they were poison? No.
I’ve already said that and you ignored it before, shocking. You just don’t know what you’re talking about man it’s that simple. 

“Ohhh, talk is cheap so you prove alllll these drugs, alllll this psychoactive trash is healthy for us including for newborns to take. Nobody including the government has been given a flake of proof that they alllll provide one single health benefit.”

Biggest, most pathetic strawman I’ve ever seen in my life. No one said anything about newborns. Really, the FDA doesn’t have medical benefits for Methamphetamine? Why is it cleared to be prescribed? The FDA has no medical use for cocaine? Why is it prescribed? The FDA has no medical use for morphine (which is heroin minus two acetyl bonds that have no pharmacological effect) why is it used in hospitals daily? The FDA has no medical use for ketamine? Why is it cleared and prescribed for depression? The FDA sees no medical use for MDMA? Why is it used to treat PTSD, and given breakthrough status by the FDA? 

You are the king of making claims when you have no clue what you’re talking about man, it’s embarrassing. You didn’t even research what you just said because it is so insanely wrong it’s laughable. 

“Then you're pushing to legalize it. What kind of country do you want? This topic ought to reveal the image of what a free free country would look like to you. Way worse but if you're nihilistic, it doesn't matter like you say safety doesn't matter.”

I want to live in a country where people don’t have their lives ruined and sit in cages for using drugs. Pretty simple. 

“Ok prove the health benefits of it and why the government has not made using coke legal like consuming spinach.” 

I’ve already listed health benefits, you didn’t read them. 

“Cocaine usage is illegal. Why?”

I already told you why, you ignored it and tried to turn it around on me somehow 

“I don't know why you're sticking to the term "dangerous", but anything and everything is illegal that disrupts, hinders or makes some kind of adversity on society in some way.” 

You realize that this makes no sense correct? It’s illegal to sell or buy blue light bulbs in the state I live in. Is that a hindrance to society? Of course not. You’re telling me to think deeper even though all you’ve done is make claims about something you know nothing about this entire debate. You’ve also made claims that are just straight up factually incorrect. 

“Used how, in WHAT FORM? See I detect conflation again and I have to keep that in check, that's all.”

It is prescribe TO BE SNORTED. Maybe if I type it in all caps you’ll read it this time. 

“I don't think any of this is coke. See I'm trying to stick to one thing to help you from going all over the place. ”

No you’re not because just a few sentences before this you said “alllllllll these drugs” 

“What's the health benefit in snorting coke?”

Prevents cluster head aches, increases energy, boosts mood, boosts motivation, increases empathy, relieves stress. And yes it can cause problems if abused, but as I’ve provided evidence for that you refuse to engage with, most cocaine users do not abuse the drug, they reap the benefits from enjoying the drug. 

“So bottom line, you are to prove that being strung out on coke, then getting dragged to the rehabilitation centers like Pookie is good and healthy for the society. ”
No I don’t have to prove that, because that’s not what I’m arguing. Again you’re straw manning everything I say. People also go through every single thing you just said with alcohol. Why aren’t you calling for it to be banned? What I am saying is that the majority of drug users, cocaine users included, never experience anything like this at all. That majority, should not face prison, death or brutalization, because of the minority of people who use the drug are using it incorrectly. 

Bottom line is simple. My opponent is entirely uneducated on how drugs work, is incapable of reading and understanding what my points are, is only capable of making a straw man, is only capable o f understanding a point if it is spelled out to him like he’s in the 2nd grade. 

He has no business ever speaking about this topic because people like him are the reason other people go to prison, have their lives ruined, and face death simply because they enjoy other drugs than alcohol. Ignorant person, spreading unthought out, ignorant opinions. On a highly complex, scientific, important topic.  

Con
#8
"That’s all I’m saying they need to do for drugs. "

The FDA has accomplished this. I stand by their decision and the answer is no. Nothing has convinced us otherwise. This is super straightforward. Nothing complex about this topic at all. It doesn't have to be.

"Currently buying them off the streets is very dangerous simply because there are no regulations. You are literally making my point for me. yet you’re too blinded by trying to be right you can’t even see that. "

If this is all the issue really is, why is it not legal to sell cocaine at the grocery stores or vape shops ?

Why can't it be distributed at hookah bars where the bongs are so anyone can get their snort on?

Do you see where you got stuck in your point?

"The drug market needs to be regulated, not banned to keep them as safe as possible. "

Then why haven't they been regulated yet if that's the only issue holding it up?

Maybe nobody is interested.

"When I say “safety doesn’t matter” that means that just because certain things are dangerous does not mean they need to be banned."

Does safety matter or not? We're not going back in forth on this. If you don't get this straight before a court, they'll reject this proposal right out the gate.

"I’m not sure how you’re not seeing my point considering I’ve said many times. You’re just willfully ignoring it. "

You're not sure. Here's what it is most likely the hang up... you know ...... the usage of all psychoactive drugs are currently illegal. Apparently the government doesn't agree with you on that. I don't know how many petitions they may received down through the years. If any at all , they've failed because well.... because the obvious I just said it.

"This is simply not true, name me one thing that didn’t exist before drugs and is only caused by illegal drug use. Can’t be addiction, can’t be death, can’t be poverty, can’t be job loss, can’t be abusive parents. All of that existed before illegal drugs or exists with legal drugs. You’re not making sense man. "

Wait a minute, so you don't believe people actually overdose from drugs causing death. You don't believe there are crimes, murders related to drug deals going bad. Is that right?

I don't know where you live but maybe you want utopia. That's where you go getting high. No wonder you want this so bad .

"Of course I would not advise children to take drugs. Just like I wouldn’t advise children to drive cars or ride motorcycles until they’re at an age, and educated enough to do those things safely. that doesn’t make me a hypocrite that makes me rational. This again is an example of you trying to boil this conversation down to “gotcha” points and it’s absurd. "

No it does. You should of never made a paradoxical statement about safety is not important or doesn't matter. Don't ever make such a disingenuous statement again. You make a fool of yourself. I'm just helping you out there and being real.

"I have actually pointed to many things you’ve said aren’t true, like your cocaine claims, you just ignore them."

I said just one example that isn't true. You keep saying"many things " . Instead of saying that, just give up an example. Give one example when you respond to this. 

"You also haven’t combatted anything I’ve said "

I sure as hell ain't agreeing with you. But you can choose to not call it combatting. I'm not here to fight with you. Just correct the errors in the name of edification.

"First off you’re assuming drugs being legal will cause destruction, and pretending what I just listen isn’t."

I don't have to assume. The ones that are , are already destructive while being illegal. Case closed really.

This is cased closed.

"I’m literally calling on the government to regulate this market to make drug use as safe as possible. Which you apparently have had a hard time understanding even though I stated that clearly in round one. "

Why hasn't the government regulated like you want it?

"No that’s not at all what I’m saying man, you’re just straw manning my argument. It’s not just freedom. It’s reducing the number of deaths, reducing the number of families ripped apart by drug charges."

You got your work cut out for you. Go back to that drawing board and redo these arguments.

"Again you are calling drugs poison even though most of them are cleared by the FDA"

Ok the ones that are illegal. Duh. That's why I continue to use the example of coke. Last time I checked, it was illegal to use. In case you conflate the illegal cocaine with something else, the ILLEGAL cocaine, alright.

"Do you really think our government would be allowing millions of people to take these drugs legally through prescription if they were poison? "

I'm not arguing LEGAL drugs. That was never my argumentttttt. Last time I checked again, illegal cocaine wassss illegalllll. See, nice and simple. Do you follow?

"I’ve already said that and you ignored it before, shocking. You just don’t know what you’re talking about man it’s that simple. "

I know the government hasn't legalized the usage of illegal coke. They agree with me. Do you think this is a claim too or are you going to wake up and believe it this time?

Believe me I ain't trying to mislead you, it's all good.

“Ohhh, talk is cheap so you prove alllll these drugs, alllll this psychoactive trash is healthy for us including for newborns to take. Nobody including the government has been given a flake of proof that they alllll provide one single health benefit.”


Your response below to my challenge above.

"Biggest, most pathetic strawman I’ve ever seen in my life. No one said anything about newborns. Really, the FDA doesn’t have medical benefits for Methamphetamine? Why is it cleared to be prescribed? The FDA has no medical use for cocaine? Why is it prescribed? The FDA has no medical use for morphine (which is heroin minus two acetyl bonds that have no pharmacological effect) why is it used in hospitals daily? The FDA has no medical use for ketamine? Why is it cleared and prescribed for depression? The FDA sees no medical use for MDMA? Why is it used to treat PTSD, and given breakthrough status by the FDA? "

In other words you have no proof that snorting cocaine for example is healthy. Then the government is supposed to approve this. See vegetables and milk are healthy so we champion newborns and children to consume these applicably see .

So I know we're only in the 4th round but you're done. You're finished. You have nothing left to argue to hold a drop of water.

"You are the king of making claims when you have no clue what you’re talking about man, it’s embarrassing. You didn’t even research what you just said because it is so insanely wrong it’s laughable. "

I'm the king of making claims to facts baby. You already know.

"I want to live in a country where people don’t have their lives ruined and sit in cages for using drugs. Pretty simple. "

Want it or not, it's what you're going to get which are the dope users and drug pushers and all.

"I’ve already listed health benefits, you didn’t read them. "

List them again from snorting a bountiful amount of coke up the nose and compare that with consuming a bountiful amount of fruits and vegetables. This is the illegal coke now, don't spin this. I'm going to have you make the comparison between the two. Then I'm going to ask you why the government doesn't legalize this. Easy isn't?

"I already told you why, you ignored it and tried to turn it around on me somehow "

I notice how when I ask simple direct questions, I can't get a simple direct answer back. I think the questions are simple. "I already told you ". "I already answered ". If they're simple answers short and sweet, it's not hard to reiterate. They must be so complicated and convoluted, you wouldn't care to go back over them again. Now for that, I don't blame you.

"You realize that this makes no sense correct? It’s illegal to sell or buy blue light bulbs in the state I live in. Is that a hindrance to society? Of course not. "

Do you ever ask a question you are looking for me to answer or are you just going to ask a question and then you answer it?

Come on, that's no way to counter. You're running from the truth.

I don't know about you but the way I use the term hindrance or hinder is to prevent or restrict. Now making something illegal is to do exactly that. So in your question to yourself about the bulbs, illegal to buy or sell, it hinders society in that state to do business or purchase the product.

Like I said you're done. Just quit.

"It is prescribe TO BE SNORTED. Maybe if I type it in all caps you’ll read it this time. "

You're failing to make a case. My reading it doesn't make it one. Can't just read arguments for them to be sound arguments. Your arguments have to be sound in and of themselves. "It is prescribe TO BE SNORTED." Prescribed by who , where at?

See the questions will just keep coming with these vague responses of yours. 

"No you’re not because just a few sentences before this you said “alllllllll these drugs” 

You can't say "alllll" without including cocaine and anything of the like that is illegal. I have to say "all" or I wouldn't be telling the truth. Which you may say I'm making a claim that "all" doesn't include coke. But then that would mean you don't know what cocaine is. But if you actually care to notice, I continue to point out cocaine. I'm not making points about all drugs. I consistently reference cocaine, cocaine, cocaine. That's all that's necessary 

So to legalize alllll psychoactive substances, that WOULD INCLUDE CRACK COCAINE.

"Prevents cluster head aches, increases energy, boosts mood, boosts motivation, increases empathy, relieves stress. And yes it can cause problems if abused, but as I’ve provided evidence for that you refuse to engage with, most cocaine users do not abuse the drug, they reap the benefits from enjoying the drug. "

If all this is true, why is it illegal?

"No I don’t have to prove that, because that’s not what I’m arguing. "

No that is what you have to argue. That's why it's illegal. The answer to the question I asked you. Newsflash, breaking news, if you don't know, now you know.

Due to your character restraints, I'll leave it here .


























Round 5
Pro
#9
Ok, again my opponent is simply logically inadequate. Instead of destroying everything he said for another round in a row, I'm only going to debunk a couple of logical fallacies he's making and just finish making the case for drug legalization. 

first: Wait a minute, so you don't believe people actually overdose from drugs causing death. You don't believe there are crimes, murders related to drug deals going bad. Is that right?

No, that's not what I am saying, what I am saying is that murder, and crimes have existed long before drugs, and will exist even if we ban all drugs. That was my point, yes people die from drug overdoses. However, I have provided a ton of evidence to support the claim that if we were to legalize drugs those numbers would drop dramatically. Just in case the judges and my opponent forgot, I will list them again. up to 95% of drugs seized off the street contain 6 or more substances, depending on which state the study is being conducted. The average number of drugs in someone who has overdosed is also 6. There has been a direct correlation with increased contamination and increased overdose death rates. This exact thing happened with alcohol. Alcohol prohibition was an admittedly failed experiment. The government failed to adequately enforce their law with just one drug. Why on earth would they believe they can effectively enforce it with thousands of banned drugs this time around? Whatever their reasoning is, they are clearly wrong. They're laws are killing more people than the drugs are. 

"I don't have to assume. The ones that are , are already destructive while being illegal. Case closed really." 

Again, the destruction you are seeing is because the drugs are illegal. Why don't we see a high number of drug deaths from prescription drugs? Because they are clean, have recommended dosages, and the people are minimally educated on what not to mix them with. None of that is happening with drugs on the street. That is the change I am calling for. 

"other words you have no proof that snorting cocaine for example is healthy. Then the government is supposed to approve this. See vegetables and milk are healthy so we champion newborns and children to consume these applicably see ."

I do not at all have to prove that. Do I have to prove that riding motorcycles is healthy for it to be legal? Do I have to prove that drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco is healthy for it to be legal? Do I have to list reasons that boxing is healthy, and recommend newborns fight, for it to be legal? Of course not, because we live in a society where adults are legally allowed to do dangerous things as long as we are not directly harming others. Even though if someone dies boxing, riding motorcycles, drinking or smoking, it will harm people around them emotionally but the activity itself is not directly harmful to others. Just like using drugs. This idea that everything has to be healthy or perfectly safe to be legal is absurd. Guns are legal, knives are legal, scissors are legal, bombs like tannerite are legal. 

The reason all drugs being legalized would make our society a better place to live is clear. Freedom of choosing what we do with our lives is important. IF there was evidence to support the idea that every single person who used these drugs became addicts, I would likely not have this opinion. Instead the data show that the vast, vast majority of drug users are not addicts. They have jobs, take care of their children, pay their taxes, etc. I am one of those people, and I'm not in the minority. Less people would grow up in foster care, less people would have to see their parents in prison simply for possessing drugs, less people would lose their jobs due to drug charges, less people would die. I will be the first to admit, part of this argument is selfish. I am a drug user, a very responsible one, I test all of my substances (even though that act alone could land me in jail) I take a very very small amount of the drug to make sure I'm not allergic to it, I steadily scale my doses until I'm a state of mind I enjoy but can still function. I do not want to risk going to prison on some jumped up drug charge, I don't want to risk my children growing up in foster care, I do not want to lose my job that pays me $2,500 a week, I also don't want to die.  Drug contamination is the main cause of the drug deaths we see in our country. There is a reason that countries like Portugal who have testing equipment readily available that is cheap, to all of its citizens, and has drugs decriminalized, only has 6 deaths per 1,000,000 people by drugs. The US and Scottland who have very similar drug laws, have over 300 deaths per 1,000,000 people. That should be very telling. 

I get the vibe that my opponent is anti-vax. Just based off of his other opinions like taking away rights of gay people and banning abortion. Both of which are no business of his. Just like drug use, drug use of others is no business of yours but you are adamantly trying to keep laws in place that take and ruin lives. If you aren't anti-vax, this point is moot and I will keep it short for that reason. I'm sure, if you are, that you think it is your body, therefore your choice as to whether or not you take the vaccine. That's all I'm arguing for with drugs. I don't think everyone should take all drugs. Some people can't process alcohol correctly due to genetic variations in their metabolism. That is obviously going to be the case with other drugs. It's as simple as just not taking the drug if that is the case. It's also as simple as not taking the drug if you don't find them interesting and don't want to do them. To keep other people from doing that simply because you don't want to or think it's wrong is just sad. Mind your own business, you and the many others in our country who aren't, are helping keep laws in place that kill people. If you don't like heroin, don't take heroin. If you like heroin, you should have the legal right to use it. You also shouldn't have to worry about dying, going to prison, losing your kids, losing your job, simply because you enjoy a drug other than alcohol. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink alcohol, but you're not campaigning to ban alcohol. Why? Probably because you know it's not your place to tell people what they can and can't do. Why is it your place to do so with other drugs? Why do you think you're able to do that? Surely its not because you think you're educated enough to tell people how drugs actually work, why addiction forms, why drugs can kill, how to minimize risks while maximizing benefits, you don't know anything about the topic. Yet, you feel comfortable telling other people what to do in regards to this topic. 

My opponent has attempted to pick my words apart, without providing any actual evidence for anything he has said. He has called FDA approved medications "poison" He has tried to say I have to prove it is as healthy as eating cabbage. He has said I have to make a case as to why toddlers should be told to use these drugs. He's making points that he clearly knows I'm not trying to make. I'm unsure whether or not he is doing this willfully as a way of debating, or if he just can't handle the conversation without turning to high school debate tactics. He knows nothing about this topic, and has still attempted to make claims. That's the problem our government has. People who are wholly uneducated in something, passing laws, throwing people in prison, ruining lives because they feel like they have the right to do that. If my opponent was in a position of power he would be an utter disaster to the freedom of the people in the US. He hasn't tried to engage with any of the data I have presented. He has only taken my arguments, turned them into a strawman, then asked me to explain a made argument I never made. Either that or he tries to move the goal posts. I clearly said only adults should have the right to use these drugs, two rounds later he's asking me to explain why toddlers should be told to take them. This is a hallmark for an ignorant person arguing about something he knows nothing about. 

He hasn't engaged with the fact that the vast majority of drugs I'm calling to be legalized have been or are currently used medically. I bring that point up to show that these drugs are clearly not near as harmful as people make them out to be. Thousands of studies have been conducted on these drugs. I'll debunk just a couple of drug myths I'm sure my opponent, and maybe even some of the judges still believe. Crack cocaine is no different than cocaine. They are the same drug. The only difference is a change in the route of administration. Instead of snorting it, people smoke it. More white people use all drugs than black people, including crack cocaine. PCP was once used medicinally as an anesthetic, it was also used in psychotherapy. It was not discontinued because it caused people to become hyper violent. It was discontinued solely because the drug lasted too long. So they modified the PCP molecule to create ketamine which is used in the same way PCP was. Many studies have been conducted on PCP, not a single one ever had a participant become violent. The most that one study reported was that the participants became slightly aggravated trying to put together a puzzle after taking a large dose of PCP. Heroin is not more addictive than morphine or any other opiate. They are all essentially the same drug. The reason the self reported polls show a higher percentage of heroin users being addicts is very simple. It is only because heroin is cheaper and more available. Addicts will go to what is easiest and cheapest to find, especially if the drug is slightly more potent than the others, which heroin is. Potency is only the measurement of when pharmacological activity begins, it has no correlation to addiction what so ever. 

Con
#10
"No, that's not what I am saying, what I am saying is that murder, and crimes have existed long before drugs, and will exist even if we ban all drugs. That was my point, yes people die from drug overdoses. However, I have provided a ton of evidence to support the claim that if we were to legalize drugs those numbers would drop dramatically. Just in case the judges and my opponent forgot, I will list them again. up to 95% of drugs seized off the street contain 6 or more substances, depending on which state the study is being conducted."

You just continue to be all over the place. This is why this isn't legalized. There's no consistency for the sake of health. You have tons of evidence and the government has no ounce of it to have all drugs legalized. It is because they're ignoring the so called evidence?

Nothing but an outcry from a druggie. Not you personally but next a pride month for all this .


"They're laws are killing more people than the drugs are. "

It's you against them. At the end of the day, you get locked up for any illegal use. 

"Again, the destruction you are seeing is because the drugs are illegal. Why don't we see a high number of drug deaths from prescription drugs?"

Murder or any kind of destruction doesn't turn non lethal by making it legal. Being that this topic is about illegal drugs, there should be no question on legal drugs.

Maybe this will help you. The addiction of getting high is the issue. I'm not getting high off of diuretics and Prednisone. The issue being conflated is taking a dosage improperly versus over indulgence from addiction. Maybe you'll understand eventually why the legality changes.

"Because they are clean, have recommended dosages, and the people are minimally educated on what not to mix them with. None of that is happening with drugs on the street. That is the change I am calling for. "

Leaving out the addiction element.

"Of course not, because we live in a society where adults are legally allowed to do dangerous things as long as we are not directly harming others."

We do not live in such a society because we have illegal drugs according to this topic. Doesn't matter if done to yourself or somebody else. 

That would be a paradox because either way a society would still be destroying itself by proxy or autonomous.

"Even though if someone dies boxing, riding motorcycles, drinking or smoking, it will harm people around them emotionally but the activity itself is not directly harmful to others. Just like using drugs"

All of these things can be harmful to others. That's why there are laws. That's why people press charges for assault, we have D.U I.'s , second hand smoke, overdose on drugs .

I'm telling you, all drugs are not getting legalized behind this. We'd have to go completely nihilistic. The society we're in still has some valuable measure of safety thank heavens.

"This idea that everything has to be healthy or perfectly safe to be legal is absurd. "

Nihilistic and destructive thought process if ever I read one . Just imagine educating this mess to kids, sick. Kids are supposed to be taught health and nutrition particularly for their case on account of growth.

Then you catch yourself in a double standard as you haven't thought this all the way through. Think it over more.

"Guns are legal, knives are legal, scissors are legal, bombs like tannerite are legal. "

Pretty much to protect those of us from the nihilistic individuals.

"Freedom of choosing what we do with our lives is important."

The freedom of doing what is not destructive to us certainly is .

"IF there was evidence to support the idea that every single person who used these drugs became addicts, I would likely not have this opinion."

This is your problem in the thinking . All it takes is one or a few. The RISK is already there. It doesn't matter every time a person doesn't wear a seatbelt, they don't go flying out. It's still applicably illegal to not wear one .

" I also don't want to die. "

Then live healthy, don't do the things that are life diminishing. Don't want to die and yet do the things to reduce your lifespan.

"He has called FDA approved medications "poison" ".

Never stated that in that context. I don't think you're attempting to misrepresent me but just getting the points mixed up.

"He has tried to say I have to prove it is as healthy as eating cabbage. "

I didn't try. I just said it. We can see you can't. But cabbage is legal to consume.

"I take a very very small amount of the drug to make sure I'm not allergic to it, I steadily scale my doses until I'm a state of mind I enjoy but can still function. I do not want to risk going to prison on some jumped up drug charge, I don't want to risk my children growing up in foster care, I do not want to lose my job that pays me $2,500 a week"

Doggone shame , you gotta do all this tip toeing around with poison. Is it really worth it going to jail really? All of this careful tip toeing because you know you messing with poison. You tell me who's getting locked over being healthy and safe. You get prosecuted for the opposite.

Let me say this since you kept bringing up alcohol. If you want to debate about that , we can with a topic related to it. Only thing you're saying by bringing up alcohol is the inconsistency in the government. The justice system isn't flawless, I'm sure you may heard that before. The system isn't perfect but that's another topic.

Cocaine is illegal but it is no good. But you're not totally against what is no good as safety is a good thing but it doesn't matter as compared to freedom for the sake of just freedom. Totally meaningless.

"He has said I have to make a case as to why toddlers should be told to use these drugs. He's making points that he clearly knows I'm not trying to make."

I'm just making the point that we both agree that all drugs to include coke are not healthy. But that's your position. You position is to push a less healthier, unsafe society. You make statements about safety not being important, everything doesn't have to be healthy, then you say you don't want to die. Being unhealthy conflicts with "I don't want to die". The more damage to your health, the quicker you will expire.

You're position is all twisted up. No consistency whatsoever. Healthy for the children, not so much for the adults. Why push health on kids , then drop it on the adults who were once them same kids?

Teaching a kid to be healthy so they can make it to be an unhealthy adult. For not too long as an adult anyway. It's an oxymoron, defeating the point mindset. 

Like using water to rinse off a car when it's about to rain.

"People who are wholly uneducated in something, passing laws, throwing people in prison, ruining lives because they feel like they have the right to do that. "

Then you people don't do the drugs. Is it really this challenging to have the self discipline to reject the illegal drugs?

Don't do the crime, you won't do the time. Stop crying, man up, woman up. You be alright.

"If my opponent was in a position of power he would be an utter disaster to the freedom of the people in the US. "

Well the drugs that are already illegal are no thanks to me now. So are we in disaster now while illegal drugs are being used? 

You have failed to show making a situation worse is better. Implementing more legality is an oxymoron in terms of all psychoactive substances to INCLUDE cocaine.

What a merry go round we're on.

I'm going to end it here as I'm getting off this merry go round with you and all these circular points.

I'm being called or referred to as ignorant, uneducated, the one that champions complete health and safety.

You're the one that has all the burden. My position is already legal. "If my opponent was in a position of power ", what are you talking about?

My position is already in position because what I'm for is already legal.


You calling the government ignorant and uneducated, is that so?

I know the ones that are locked up, those that care about their lives, wish they had known better like an educated person instead of being behind bars like a damn fool. 

You better wake up  before you go off to sleep permanently sooner than later with that position of yours.