All psychoactive substances should be legalized to be sold to adults as alcohol and nicotine are.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
- Caffeine
- Xylazine
- Fentanyl
- 4-ANPP
- 4-Fluorofentanyl
- Heroin
- Phenethyl 4-ANPP
- Fentanyl
- Xylazine
- 4-ANPP
- 4-Fluorofentanyl
- Despropionyl-4-fluorofentanyl
- Phenethyl 4-ANPP
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.
...This was a slog to read. The debate just gets incredibly repetitive after the first round and I read completely through the third before I started skipping large chunks of the same points being made over and over.
It's very simple. Pro has a general argument about why these psychoactive substances should be legalized and provides reasoning that's largely based on free access being a general good. That's fine, albeit it remains poorly weighed against safety concerns in the end. I've judged a debate by Pro before and I still don't buy the "what about this other dangerous thing that's allowed right now?" argument. It's an argument that utilizes existing hypocrisy in the legal structure as a basis for legalizing something, which may make sense on a level of fairness, but since fairness is never weighed as an impact, it feels a bit empty.
That being said, none of this matters. Con never argues against any of it beyond saying that safety matters more, so fine, let's talk about safety.
Con's sole argument against the resolution is that cocaine is bad. The entirety of his reasoning for this comes in R1, where he says "it brings about cardiovascular issues which escalate to stroke and brain seizures." and cites an article by Mark Shrayber. First off, usually a good idea to provide a link to the article so that your opponent and your audience can read your evidence, especially since this was your only source. Second, just because you say something about health harms that can result from drug usage doesn't mean that you've weighed your argument. Stroke and brain seizures are terrible, but how often do they happen and at what dosages? The article goes into some detail on this, but Con relies entirely on voters and his opponent to read into his source. You can't weigh these points just by claiming them over and over again. You can't get any extra weight just by saying that there's a safety risk that can be triggered on first use, one that could even result in death. That's a big impact, but it matters a lot more when you give numbers, and Con cannot rely on the article to provide those without quoting them in his argument.
More importantly, though, that argument has multiple counters from Pro. I see several places where he talks about mixing drugs and the effect those mixed drugs have on the body. Even if I buy Con's argument wholesale that pure cocaine presents a substantial risk, Pro tells me that the mixing of ingredients that happens on the black market results in deadlier drugs. So, at minimum, there's a boost to safety of cocaine use among those who are already using it on the illegal market, and since I don't know if or how much cocaine usage would expand post-legalization, that point stands pretty strong. But let's say I'm not entirely sure how that safety balances with the safety of pure cocaine usage. Pro also has this benefit for every other drug on his list, and with no apparent harms resulting from their usage in their pure forms (Con builds his entire case on cocaine), Pro is, essentially, achieving absolute safety for every drug on the market aside from cocaine. That's a huge safety impact, and the only response I see to all this is that the government currently makes these drugs illegal, so they must be dangerous. That's a broad appeal to authority that isn't based on any evidence. It's a weak response to the kind of biochemical information that Pro provides, and it doesn't suffice.
So, frankly, it's pretty obvious Pro is winning this on the safety level, but also beyond it since he's the only one arguing issues of freedom and fairness, despite those likely being smaller impacts overall. Pro, don't let the debate get dragged out like this in the future. You basically had this locked up by the end of R2 and you just have to stay focused on the key issues. Letting Con distract you and get under your skin could only hurt your position.
Thanks for the vote. I knew I was getting into an argument too much with him.
I'm on it.
Drop a vote please sir.
I apologize, but I don't yet meet the qualifications to vote for debates.
I wasn't sure if I was the only one unable to vote, as I am a relatively new user. I do appreciate your professionalism, it is hard to know what to expect from anonymous individuals, so forgive my lack of expectations.
Thank you.
Check out the "qualifications" tab on your profile. You have to have completed 3 debates before you can vote. Also, note that I haven't barred you from any activities on the site. If I had done that, I would at least have the decency to let you know that it had happened and why.
It shows me "You do not have a qualification to vote on debates". I'm unsure if this is a result of WhiteFlame or whether I just do not have the privilege as I am a relatively new user.
Remind me over the weekend.
you guys drop a vote on this one.
Yeah I’m down
Would you be interested in becoming a judge in my Tournament?
I realize you’ve turned down Voter requests in the past, but I think you’re really smart.
There are some subjects that will be within your domain (like science, chemistry, pharmacology.), most might be out of your depth. (Religion, history, politics.) But I believe that’s a semi-requirement for beginning judges because they may have less biases.
Or at least he knows nothing about this topic and tried to pretend he’s an expert, which is probably common practice from him.
He’s an idiot lmao.
Mall’s good, huh?
Mall and Mps just might be the funniest debate duo pair.
What do you think about this subject?
That is what I mean by “as alcohol and nicotine are” sold in the same fashion, regulated, controlled, and legal to posses, purchase and use. It has nothing to do with the differences in the drugs
I’m not even sure what you’re claiming or trying to say here.
Yes alcohol and nicotine are different drugs that act very differently in the brain. But are they sold differently? No. They’re sold in stores, the companies manufacturing and produces these drugs have to meet regulatory standards, Quality control requirements, etc.
Yeah, and what do you think "as alcohol and nicotine are" is possible when the two are entirely different? That is like saying "XXX brand should make cars that are like F1 cars and missile-carrying trucks". Does it even mean anything?
is alcohol really only sold in bars? I was unaware of that, I could’ve sworn I’ve purchased many alcoholic beverages from stores, that had cashiers, displays, and refrigerators. Maybe I’m just tripping though.
I’m not calling for bars, has nicotine every been sold to you in a bar? I’m calling for these drugs to be sold in regulated environment that has quality controlled standards, just like alcohol and nicotine. There should be dispensaries that sell a wide range of psychoactive substances. Why do people who use alcohol get to have the peace of mind of not facing jail time, having their kids taken away, having their drug of choice quality controlled, etc. but people who like ketamine, or oxycodone, or heroin not deserve that? Why should I have to face prison time because I enjoy taking oxycodone every now and then? Why should I have to worry about my drug being contaminated with more potent substances and no way to test for it? Fentanyl test strips themselves are illegal is the majority of US states. You should’ve taken the debate.
"As alcohol and nicotine are"
You aren't asking for pharmacies, you are asking for bars.