Instigator / Con
16
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4554
All psychoactive substances should be legalized for adults to purchase and use, sold from dispensaries in a regulated fashion as we do with alcohol.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
12
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
1
After 4 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Mps1213
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
23
1538
rating
11
debates
81.82%
won
Description
I contend that all drugs, from heroin to cannabis should be legalized and sold in dispensaries like alcohol and nicotine are today.
(Only Mps1213 can accept.)
Round 1
Pro
#2
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. Drugs are not the cause of the 91,000 deaths we saw in America in 2020.
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!
Round 2
Con
#3
Preamble
I am arguing for Drug Prohibition and defending that all psychoactive substances should not be legalized.
A prevailing assumption amongst legalization advocates is that drug laws are what’s perpetuating the most damage to society rather than drugs themselves.
Framework
Burdens
There are currently only three systems of a nation in which drug legalization could operate, and I raise objections to all three of these systems. But to stay on track for the discussion, Pro must decide which of these three systems he’s in favor of and must stick to it.:
- “A Free Market for all drugs, like drugs and cigarettes.”
- A government-run or heavily regulated system of drug distribution
- A system where health care professionals distribute the drugs.”
Given the title of the resolution, Pro will be defending option #2 unless he wishes to contest this later on.
In order to meet all the burdens involved, he must prove several things.
- Legalizing drugs would be good for society.
- That the legalization & regulation of drugs can be done safely without backfiring.
- That Drug Prohibition is a restriction on people’s freedom.
Since the resolution addresses all psychoactive substances, these are some of the drugs included on the list that Pro will be arguing we should legalize.
- crack cocaine
- methylphenidate (Ritalin)
- ephedrine
- MDMA (ecstasy)
- peyote (mescaline)
- LSD blotter
- psilocybin mushroom (Psilocybe cubensis)
- Salvia divinorum
- diphenhydramine (Benadryl)
- Amanita muscaria mushroom
- Tylenol 3 (contains codeine)
- codeine with muscle relaxant
- pipe tobacco
- bupropion (Zyban)
- marijuana
- hashish
Anesthetics
- Desflurane (common)
- Enflurane (largely discontinued)
- Halothane (inexpensive, discontinued)
- Isoflurane (common)
- Methoxyflurane
- Nitrous oxide
- Sevoflurane (common)
- Xenon (rarely used)
Contentions
Legalization is estimated to grow addiction rates by 25%
Pro mentions that most drug users are not addicts, but this is not the current findings of statistics.
- “Almost 21 million Americans have at least 1 addiction, yet only 10% of them receive treatment.”
- “Drug overdose deaths have more than tripled since 1990.”
- “Alcohol and drug addiction cost the US economy over $600 billion every year.” 1
If prices of the drugs are not managed carefully, then the accessibility is almost certainly guaranteed to cause disaster. Here are the estimates of the potential consequences of legalization,
“Drug legalization may increase the number of drug addicts by 25 percent, but the current dollar volume of the drug trade is estimated at approximately $100 billion a year and reducing the economic profit of drug dealing is necessary.” 2
Pro states that it is possible for most users to do drugs recreationally without compromising their healthy and responsible lives, and that they don’t have to become addicts. However, there is a term called a Functioning Addict.
Plenty of people maintain duo lives and seemingly keep their cover but secretly have a substance use disorder.
Heroin addicts, for example, do this all the time.
“They’re not slumped over in alleyways with used needles by their sides. Their dignity, at least from outside appearances, remains intact. They haven’t lost everything while chasing an insatiable high.
They are functioning heroin addicts – people who hold down jobs, pay the bills and fool their families.” 3
The majority of these addicts are government officials, physicians, teachers, CEOS.
What’s common amongst most of these people is a substance use disorder which usually involves abusing the following.: Opioids, cocaine, heroine, or alcohol.
The Consequences of Addiction will be severe
There is no single cause for addiction and it can range from environment, development, and biology, but some people are more vulnerable to addiction than others.
Drugs are known to trigger a sense of euphoria from activating the mind’s reward center. But when regular use decreases the amount of dopamine produced and a person becomes desensitized, they will have to increase the dose just to reproduce the same results from their first time.
This is how dependency leads to addiction and how regular users become addicts. As Pro himself concedes, drugs are dangerous. But he conspicuously leaves out the reasons as to why.
- For example, snorting cocaine through the nose can damage nasal cartilage, and taking opiates can lead to opiate-induced constipation, a chronic and potentially fatal form of constipation if a person does not receive treatment. Regular tobacco use can cause a range of cancers and smoking methamphetamine might fuel a severe form of dental decay known as “meth mouth”.
- On average, 115 people in the United States die every day by overdosing on opioid painkillers.
But drugs do not only destroy the body. They also destroy a person’s soul through ruining relationships and causing severe emotional trauma by inflicting circumstances hard to get out of.
“Drug addiction might lead people to financial problems, homelessness, criminal activity, and prison.”
Adolescent & Pre-Adolescent Drug Use & Death
Unfortunately, a few of the many consequences of drug legalization would be kids becoming vulnerable to influence from relatives who use drugs and may be more likely to cave into peer pressure if encouraged by a friend.
There will be an increase of parents who carelessly stash their drugs in a place that their kids can find it and early drug use in children is the common denominator that leads to addiction later in life. Kids are unlikely to be very educated and will therefore be more prone to overdosing because they do not have the knowledge to safely experiment.
Additionally, a lot of mothers who are drug users inadvertently kill their children in the womb because they continue to abuse drugs while pregnant.
“As the decriminalization and legalization of drug possession becomes more widespread, and as drug use becomes more culturally acceptable, authorities are less sure how to handle cases of parents using drugs around small children. And because police are not investigating reports of illegal drug use, they are less likely to encounter situations where children are living with addicted parents.”
“Whether it’s from exposure to drugs in the womb, children finding drugs or paraphernalia in the home, or parents neglecting infants and toddlers because they are high, substance abuse is driving our country’s child-welfare crisis. At least 40 percent of kids in foster care are removed from their homes because of parental substance abuse, but most experts say that the true proportion is closer to 80 percent.” 5
Pro
#4
Ok thank you Lancelot for actually giving a response. I do not wish for the government to run this legalization change. However it does need to be regulated just like alcohol is. Not necessarily heavily regulated, but distribution and production needs to meet quality standards like alcohol does.
I’ll break down your argument piece by piece.
First off: “
Legalization is estimated to grow addiction rates by 25%”
What is your evidence for this? You didn’t cite any statistics or reason to believe this. Therefore it is responsible to treat this as just an assumption that has no evidence to support it. Even the study you cite, provides no statistics or reason to make that claim. It’s just making some random assumption they provide no evidence for. That’s useless in this topic
“Pro mentions that most drug users are not addicts, but this is not the current findings of statistics.
“Almost 21 million Americans have at least 1 addiction, yet only 10% of them receive treatment.”
“Drug overdose deaths have more than tripled since 1990.”
“Alcohol and drug addiction cost the US economy over $600 billion every year.” 1
If prices of the drugs are not managed carefully, then the accessibility is almost certainly guaranteed to cause disaster. Here are the estimates of the potential consequences of legalization”
“Drug legalization may increase the number of drug addicts by 25 percent, but the current dollar volume of the drug trade is estimated at approximately $100 billion a year and reducing the economic profit of drug dealing is necessary.” 2
What about any of this talks about the percentages of drug addicts?
First off I hope you aware that this proves my point. There are 21,000,0000 addicts, well over 200,000,000 people use drugs every year in this country. So it is entirely obvious the vast, vast majority of drug users are not addicts.
Drug overdose deaths correlate directly with the increasing amounts of drug contamination in the US. That has absolutely nothing at all to do with addiction. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by using that statistic besides the fact that regulated quality control would save lives.
Also the costs of addiction means nothing about the percentage of total drug users that are addicts. Especially as inflation rises and healthcare costs balloon out of control. That has nothing to do with this conversation.
Afterwards you begin bringing up the risks and death statistics with these drugs. Why are you bringing these up, as a way to argue for keeping drugs illegal, but not speaking about how tobacco kills more people a year than all other drugs combined? Why should that be legal? There’s no sound argument that safety is what’s important in this topic. After all we are allowed to sky dive, own guns, ride motorcycles, hike mountains, drink alcohol, And smoke tobacco. Safety clearly isn’t important to our government and unless you’re willing to stay philosophically consistent, it shouldn’t matter to you.
All of these risks You are talking about only stem from serious abuse. So cocaine can sometimes be prescribed for episodes of cluster head aches, to be snorted. Methamphetamine is prescribed under the name brand Desoxyn, to be taken daily by tens of thousands of people, oxycodone and hydrocodone which is very similar to heroin both pharmacologically and structurally, is prescribed to millions of people to be taken daily. Do you really think our medical system would allow this if these risks were as prevalent as you’re making them out to be? No they wouldn’t. Only about 3.8% of prescription opioid users ever turn to street drugs, and only about 10% of those people ever become addicts.
“The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that 80% of heroin users first used, and then misused, prescription opioids. The reverse is not true; not all people who use prescription opioids move to heroin. According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, less than 4% of people who had misused prescription pain medicines started using heroin.”
“Approximately 30% of patients are misusing opioids (taking more than directed, taking medications not prescribed to themselves), and 10% of patients are addicted. For patients who are prescribed opioids for more than 45 days, one in ten develop a substance use disorder from prescription use.”
So explain to me how anything you’ve claimed, any of the evidence you’ve provided, breaks what the NIH has reported with drug use? It doesn’t. Only 10-20% of drug users are addicts. That’s the case with every drug. From alcohol to heroin.
I never denied the results of addiction are severe and very damaging. That’s not debatable. However the fact remains that addiction is statistically unlikely across all classes of drugs. There are also very clear ore determining factors for addiction. It revolves around mental health disorders, unrealistic expectations being put on someone, trauma, emotional crises, job loss, and poverty. Which is why you see drug addiction rates in poor communities higher, even though drug use rates are higher in upper class communities. The evidence for genetics playing a role in addiction is very loose. All of the evidence tends to point towards the environment being the determining factor in those situations. If you grow up with an addict, you are more likely to be an addict. However if you have a parent that is an addict, and the child is separated from them, they are far less likely to become an addict. The only way you are able to say it is genetic, is if the parents pass down mental disorders as a whole.
this one scientific article debunks just about every claim you’ve made in your entire argument. This is published in the most renown and prestigious science journal in the world. Nature.
This very clearly states that the link between genetics and addiction is very weak and almost nonexistent. It also clearly states that only 10-20% of drug users become addicts. This study actually provides mechanisms, data, and evidence to support the claims made. Which nothing that you cited did. Everything you cited either didn’t relate to the claims you were making. Or were simply just random assumptions made with no evidence.
There is also no evidence, at all to support your claim that more children will use drugs. We can look at cannabis for that. Cannabis use among high school students peaked in the 1970’s when around 36% of them Reported using cannabis recently. When compared to now it’s about 15%
So again these reports you’re citing are just making claims and have no evidence to support them. They are just saying what sounds good. Many people, organizations, scientists, are very anti-drug and will twist and bend science to fit their narrative. Nothing you said holds up to the actual evidence posted by NIDA or the NIH. Which are far more useful with their research and data reports considering it’s the only thing they do.
So even though you did a good job of pointing out risks, that doesn’t really do anything For this debate. Simply because risks alone aren’t reason to keep things banned. They certainly aren’t reason to continue throwing people in cages and ruining their lives with drug charges. Over 1,000,000 people a year are arrested for drug charges in the US. They’re lived are ruined from drug charges. They are disqualified from many high paying jobs, they can lose their children simply for failing a drug test. None of that occurs with alcohol and that is simply wrong. I shouldn’t have to risk losing my kids because I enjoy drugs other than alcohol or cannabis. Especially considering that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs on the planet. It literally has a metabolite called acetaldehyde which is a known carcinogen and neurotoxin. Alcohol poisons the user. So it is impossible to use the potential risks as an argument to keep these drugs illegal, and keep sending people to prison.
In our current state decriminalization would be more harmful than prohibition. Legalization is the only route. If we decriminalize drugs, and don’t provide any testing equipment, or easy access facilities the overdose problem will become worse. Our country doesn’t care about the safety of drug users which is why fentanyl test strips are illegal in most states.
In conclusion. None of the arguments you made stand up to the actual data from NIDA or the NIH. None of it stands up to a basic understanding of pharmacology or toxicology. It is just anti-drug rhetoric that has been said thousands of times by other people who don’t know anything about how drugs work. Most of it was completely unrelated to the topic at hand, or was just simply false. There were many claims you made that you have no evidence for as well.
Nothing you said has given me any reason to doubt this view on drugs and I hope the voters realize that the quality of my data presented far outweighs the quantity of yours.
Good debate, thank you for actually engaging this time. I apologize for any misspellings, I have worked 92 hours a week for 6 weeks straight and am posting this completely running on fumes.
Round 3
Con
#5
Thank you, Mps. Always enjoy a solid discussion.
Rebuttals
“Ok thank you Lancelot for actually giving a response. I do not wish for the government to run this legalization change. However it does need to be regulated just like alcohol is. Not necessarily heavily regulated, but distribution and production needs to meet quality standards like alcohol does.I’ll break down your argument piece by piece.”
Pro is advocating for something in between system #1 and #2. A free market vs a government run or heavily regulated system of drug distribution.
The reason why a hybridized system cannot exist is because.:
- Regulations would affect the quality of a product in a privatized economy.
- Companies may struggle to meet the regulations.
- Taxation would be going into regulations that may not necessarily be producing any good.
- Drug Cartels can assume enough power that they control the government, and impose their own regulations on competitors to get rid of the competition.
- Pro is unclear about how many regulations or what kind of regulations need to be imposed.
In a Free Market economy, companies would respond to consumer demand and constantly be adjusting their product to match competitors, and ensure the highest quality product possible
In an economy where drug institutions are publicized, the government can assume full responsibility for researching drug trends and how to adjust the substance to ensure safety is the sole priority. There would be no way for criminals to take control this way.
“What is your evidence for this? You didn’t cite any statistics or reason to believe this. Therefore it is responsible to treat this as just an assumption that has no evidence to support it. Even the study you cite, provides no statistics or reason to make that claim. It’s just making some random assumption they provide no evidence for. That’s useless in this topic”
The study is a peer-reviewed article that used forensic psychiatry, economics, and medical science to get the results of this statistic. The study inferred the hypothesis that, “With legalization, the amount of irresponsible users will increase.”
The findings from previous examples was that the estimate could reliably be predicted to be an increase of 25%. This is incontestable.
“Also the costs of addiction means nothing about the percentage of total drug users that are addicts. Especially as inflation rises and healthcare costs balloon out of control. That has nothing to do with this conversation.Afterwards you begin bringing up the risks and death statistics with these drugs. Why are you bringing these up, as a way to argue for keeping drugs illegal, but not speaking about how tobacco kills more people a year than all other drugs combined? Why should that be legal? There’s no sound argument that safety is what’s important in this topic. After all we are allowed to sky dive, own guns, ride motorcycles, hike mountains, drink alcohol, And smoke tobacco. Safety clearly isn’t important to our government and unless you’re willing to stay philosophically consistent, it shouldn’t matter to you.”
Pro assumes that legalization = reduced costs, but he is arguing for a system that is mostly free market, but with government regulation. He doesn’t consider the prices of the following.:
- What kinds of licensing are required to obtain/manufacture/sell drugs? How much does the licensing cost?
- What kinds of education/training is needed to be fully licensed, how many years will this take and how much will this cost?
- What kinds of regulations will be imposed, and how much taxation will be required to make sure that companies are keeping up with the policies?
There’s criticisms to be made about tobacco, caffeine and alcohol. But one fact remains.
Psychoactive substances are easier to abuse than any of the previous three and will require more government enforcement & maintenance to reduce danger.
““The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that 80% of heroin users first used, and then misused, prescription opioids. The reverse is not true; not all people who use prescription opioids move to heroin. According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, less than 4% of people who had misused prescription pain medicines started using heroin.”“Approximately 30% of patients are misusing opioids (taking more than directed, taking medications not prescribed to themselves), and 10% of patients are addicted. For patients who are prescribed opioids for more than 45 days, one in ten develop a substance use disorder from prescription use.”So explain to me how anything you’ve claimed, any of the evidence you’ve provided, breaks what the NIH has reported with drug use? It doesn’t. Only 10-20% of drug users are addicts. That’s the case with every drug. From alcohol to heroin.I never denied the results of addiction are severe and very damaging. That’s not debatable. However the fact remains that addiction is statistically unlikely across all classes of drugs. There are also very clear ore determining factors for addiction. It revolves around mental health disorders, unrealistic expectations being put on someone, trauma, emotional crises, job loss, and poverty. Which is why you see drug addiction rates in poor communities higher, even though drug use rates are higher in upper class communities. The evidence for genetics playing a role in addiction is very loose. All of the evidence tends to point towards the environment being the determining factor in those situations. If you grow up with an addict, you are more likely to be an addict. However if you have a parent that is an addict, and the child is separated from them, they are far less likely to become an addict. The only way you are able to say it is genetic, is if the parents pass down mental disorders as a whole.this one scientific article debunks just about every claim you’ve made in your entire argument. This is published in the most renown and prestigious science journal in the world. Nature.”
I did specify in the previous round that there is not one cause for addiction. Genetics is one factor, while I gave three.: Environment, development, and biology.
Despite Pro’s insistence that addiction is rare, it isn’t. It is very common.
Strangers aren’t what gets people into drug addiction, it is friends/family/relatives who get people started. This is how people are coaxed into selling drugs.
Now if we talk about pregnancy-deaths caused by drugs, the number is 20%. Science Update: Drug use, suicide, and homicide account for more than a fifth of pregnancy-associated deaths, study suggests
“So again these reports you’re citing are just making claims and have no evidence to support them. They are just saying what sounds good. Many people, organizations, scientists, are very anti-drug and will twist and bend science to fit their narrative. Nothing you said holds up to the actual evidence posted by NIDA or the NIH. Which are far more useful with their research and data reports considering it’s the only thing they do.”
I will concede there is a lot of anti-drug rhetoric and propaganda which exaggerate certain effects.
But my sources are verifiable and use scientific-accurate research to substantiate their research. Pro has not demonstrated that my sources are biased against drugs and I could find no evidence that they oppose legalization, but proving a bias doesn’t undermine reliability & credibility.
Pro
#6
Good response from lancelot, however I disagree with a lot of it obviously and will explain why. First lets start with his comments about the regulation.
"Regulations would affect the quality of a product in a privatized economy."
There is no evidence to support this claim at all, look no further than the cannabis an alcohol industry. The purest, highest quality, and cheapest cannabis is found in the legal recreational market.
"Drug Cartels can assume enough power that they control the government, and impose their own regulations on competitors to get rid of the competition."
There is no evidence to support the claim that the drug cartels could control our government.
"Pro is unclear about how many regulations or what kind of regulations need to be imposed."
Regulations would be relatively simple. All of the products must be made by American synthetic chemists, all products must be analyzed by labs independent of the lab of production, all drugs must be labeled with the purity, amount in the bag, and recommended dosages. We can get into the recommended dosages if you'd like but I feel like that escapes the scope of this debate and gets too deeply into pharmacology.
"The study is a peer-reviewed article that used forensic psychiatry, economics, and medical science to get the results of this statistic. The study inferred the hypothesis that, “With legalization, the amount of irresponsible users will increase.”
this is where this debate always becomes challenging because it has to boil down to the quality of evidence. There are also peer reviewed studies that have made claims that weren't supported by evidence and powered by agenda pushing. This happens all of the time. Just because a peer reviewed study makes a claim, doesn't mean it's true, not all studies are created equally. We can look at countries like Portugal and France, drugs are decriminalized in both of these countries. France never banned drugs to begin with. The most that happens if someone is caught with drugs is a small fine. These countries also have testing equipment readily available to their drug using population. Portugal saw an increase in drug use at first, but it has since dropped far below pre reform numbers. Their addiction and death rate is far, far lower than that of our country, and that of Scotland. Both of us have some of the strictest, most barbaric drug laws in the world. That isn't a coincidence.
"What kinds of education/training is needed to be fully licensed, how many years will this take and how much will this cost?"
The only person in the dispensaries that would need any type of full of education are the pharmacists. They could work just like a normal pharmacy does, if the person has questions they talk to the pharmacist. It would need to run like any other business, someone has the money to open the doors, buy the property, obtain the licenses. In my perfect world the licensing would be cheap. We've seen in states where cannabis was legalized that had very high licensing costs, a lot of problems formed. Million dollar companies were buying all of the licenses and charging extremely high weed prices that drove more people to buy off the streets. Where in Oklahoma and Oregon, for example, that didn't happen. To have the license to sell wouldn't require much, but one of the regulations would certainly be to have a pharmacist or pharmacologist in the building to answer any questions. This is completely plausible to pay these people very well, as American's spend 150 billion dollars on illegal drugs every year. It is a very lucrative market that can open many high paying jobs and bring in lots of tax revenue to the states.
"I did specify in the previous round that there is not one cause for addiction. Genetics is one factor, while I gave three.: Environment, development, and biology.
Despite Pro’s insistence that addiction is rare, it isn’t. It is very common.
Strangers aren’t what gets people into drug addiction, it is friends/family/relatives who get people started. This is how people are coaxed into selling drugs"
Again you are misunderstanding what 'statistically likely means.' So, 35 million people in the world suffer from drug use disorders. 284 million people use drugs every year world wide. That is 12% of the drug using population that suffer with drug use disorders. That is the definition of something being statistically unlikely. If you see a weather forecast and it says "there is a 12% chance of rain" you aren't going to say, "wow its very likely going to rain today." Of course when a very large sample of people do a certain thing, there will be a large number of people facing negative effects from said thing. That doesn't mean anywhere near the majority of people will face those side effects.
"But my sources are verifiable and use scientific-accurate research to substantiate their research. Pro has not demonstrated that my sources are biased against drugs and I could find no evidence that they oppose legalization, but proving a bias doesn’t undermine reliability & credibility."
Yes this is true, however the sources I have provided have shown that many of the claims you are making are not substantiated. Your claim about genetics isn't strong, your claim about more irresponsible drug users doesn't have any evidence or data to support the claim. It's just a claim made in an article. It being a peer reviewed study doesn't mean it's accurate. It's the quality of the data the studies provide that matter. That study you cited about the 25% increase used no data, didn't mention Portugal or France, it just made a claim, that simply isn't good enough.
Another point I will make for you to address, is the negative impact it has on society. Drug prohibition has repeatedly allowed officers and our judicial system as a way to excuse their abuse. We can look at the cases of officers planting evidence especially after abusing people they had no right abusing. Like these two officers in NYC who ripped a man out of his car, after the man had just left the hospital from being stabbed, almost killed him because they re-opened his wound. IN body cam footage you can hear the officers saying, "we need to find something" after searching through the car and finding nothing. They go back a second time and plant a few nuggets of cannabis. They had to do this because they needed a reason that they almost killed him. There are hundreds of examples of this. George floyd is another example. While the officer is kneeling on George's neck, the other officer can be heard saying, "This is why you don't do drugs kids." As If drugs are the reason the officer didn't just put the cuffs on floyd and walk him to the car. Parents have their children taken away simply because the parent tests positive for cannabis. People's lives are ruined by one traffic stop where they catch a drug charge, most of the hyped up, and go to jail. People lose their kids, jobs, livelihood, partners, etc. All because our government believes they have the right to throw people in a cage for using a substance other than alcohol or nicotine. If drugs were legalized these problems go away, just like no kids are being taken from people just for testing positive for alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, or prescription drugs which are usually the same exact drugs as the one that are illegal. The same drugs some people lose their lives over, are available for others to use because of a piece of a paper. That is absurd. When drugs are made illegal it gives our government too much power over our lives. It has had disastrous consequences on many different occasions that far outweigh the risks of drug use. This should be easy to see a lot of people in our country use alcohol, and if it was made illegal many people would face more damaging consequences from the potential charges they would receive than they do from the alcohol.
"Psychoactive substances are easier to abuse than any of the previous three and will require more government enforcement & maintenance to reduce danger."
This is a major pet peeve of mine. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are psychoactive substances. And alcohol and tobacco kill more people a year than all other drugs combined, and by a huge margin. So to separate alcohol and nicotine from other psychoactive substances, you have to draw some imaginary line between what separates them. That line doesn't exist and is usually morally based. Meaning people don't see doing alcohol as morally wrong, but they see using heroin as morally wrong. If you look at toxicity, heroin is far safer than alcohol. If you look at side effects, heroin is far better than alcohol. If you look at the feeling users have the next day after heavy use, heroin is far safer than alcohol. So any line you attempt to draw between alcohol and these other substances will not make sense and will easily be ripped apart by anyone who has studied pharmacology as long as I have. If you would like to get into the pharmacology aspect of this debate in the coming rounds, just say the word. So going forward, unless you have a solid reason to separate alcohol and tobacco from other drugs, don't. They're all psychoactive substances, they can all cause addiction, they can all cause death. There is no difference aside from their unique pharmacological properties, outside of a few specific drugs, the pharmacological aspects are rarely inherently harmful. That's why they are used by so many people, because they don't harm most of the users. They don't harm the users at all if the user is taking the drug responsibly.
Round 4
Con
#7
"Drug Cartels can assume enough power that they control the government, and impose their own regulations on competitors to get rid of the competition."There is no evidence to support the claim that the drug cartels could control our government.
"The wealth of the drug cartels gives them power to influence politicians whose status and influence depends on money. Such corruption undermines the credibility of governments and impairs the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to define and defend "the national interests" adequately."
This is also why a hybridized system would be the greatest self-sabotage in history.
"Psychoactive substances are easier to abuse than any of the previous three and will require more government enforcement & maintenance to reduce danger."This is a major pet peeve of mine. Alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are psychoactive substances. And alcohol and tobacco kill more people a year than all other drugs combined, and by a huge margin. So to separate alcohol and nicotine from other psychoactive substances, you have to draw some imaginary line between what separates them. That line doesn't exist and is usually morally based. Meaning people don't see doing alcohol as morally wrong, but they see using heroin as morally wrong. If you look at toxicity, heroin is far safer than alcohol. If you look at side effects, heroin is far better than alcohol. If you look at the feeling users have the next day after heavy use, heroin is far safer than alcohol. So any line you attempt to draw between alcohol and these other substances will not make sense and will easily be ripped apart by anyone who has studied pharmacology as long as I have. If you would like to get into the pharmacology aspect of this debate in the coming rounds, just say the word. So going forward, unless you have a solid reason to separate alcohol and tobacco from other drugs, don't. They're all psychoactive substances, they can all cause addiction, they can all cause death. There is no difference aside from their unique pharmacological properties, outside of a few specific drugs, the pharmacological aspects are rarely inherently harmful. That's why they are used by so many people, because they don't harm most of the users. They don't harm the users at all if the user is taking the drug responsibly.
I should probably rephrase because my Round 3 is badly articulated.
Yes, alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are categorized as psychoactive substances. But if you take all psychoactive substances and arrange them in a hierarchy, the former three are considered to be the least harmful and most manageable.
Meth is easier to misuse and the side affects induced by the substance will lead to greater consequences than a violent drunk.
Law enforcement have a harder time enforcing the rules on people who overdose, due to the symptoms sometimes causing severe hysteria.
(I realize I didn't respond to everything Pro said, but I promise to pick it up in the last round.)
Round 5
Con
#9
As is the last round, I cannot bring forth any new arguments. That said, I’ll only make retorts.
When we consider the ways in which the Cartel controls a big part of the government, as substantiated by my last round source. We can only choose between a complete Free Market or for distribution to be controlled and managed only by the government. There is no inbetween.
Pro wants you to believe a Free Market should have some regulations, but this middleline is precisely where it’s the most dangerous.
When we look at Portugal, the implication is that drug legalization is what lessened the amount of crimes that took place, but there are other alternate reasons to consider.
- Prices of drugs were raised at this time and the costs made them inaccessible. The price inflation was deliberate and happened before the legalization, and the crime rate was already steadily decreasing.
- More rehab facilities formed before legalization, using a more advanced approach to the treatment of addiction which also had a profound impact.
- Law enforcement had already busted the biggest drug manufacturing companies, which ultimately stopped the supply. It is these busts that influenced the legalization law.
People want to believe that legalization stopped the total amount of crime, but I believe these three factors had a more profound impact.
Pro’s concerns about alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are mitigated by our years of experience handling such substances and the fact that they don’t have the potential to cause harm as other psychoactive substances do, which is why they are legal.
Pro
#10
I apologize for forfeiting, I was very busy and just forgot about it.
I will also not bring forth any new arguments but will still tackle my opponent's.
first off "Pro’s concerns about alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are mitigated by our years of experience handling such substances and the fact that they don’t have the potential to cause harm as other psychoactive substances do, which is why they are legal."
This just isn't true. Alcohol Is the most toxic drug that is regularly used, in the world. It is the only drug that leaves a toxic metabolite in the body that actively poisons the user the next day. Alcohol is metabolized to acetaldehyde by the alcohol dehydrogenase enzyme in the liver. Acetaldehyde is a known, well studied, neurotoxin and carcinogen. Acetaldehyde is then broken down into Acetate which is not harmful. However, the more alcohol that is consumed, the more acetaldehyde is left in the body for longer. The reason this is so important, and can be ultimately deadly, is because of how weak of a drug alcohol is. Most drugs, like heroin, methamphetamine, PCP, etc. are taken in doses of milligrams. If they had a toxic metabolite, it wouldn't be near as problematic because the number of molecules being metabolized into that substance is so small. Alcohol on the other hand must be taken in fluid ounces. In other words, a massive amount of alcohol molecules must be ingested to feel an effect, and that leaves way more mass to be metabolized into a legitimate poison. This is why I have a hard time with making the argument that alcohol is only legal because it is safer than drugs like heroin. Heroin is a much safer drug toxicologically than alcohol. This doesn't mean alcohol is only bad, I want to make that clear. Alcohol is actually a pretty healthy drug when taken moderately. It is cardio-protective, Prevents type-2 diabetes and some other things. Only when used moderately. However, that is nothing special, all drugs have their list of benefits. Heroin is one of the best treatments of bronchitis the world has ever seen, it also treats severe pain, cancer pain, and coughs very well. So I would like the voters to understand that to make claims about alcohol in particular as to why it should be legal, the person making that argument would have to have the most crooked and twisted line to make it a sound argument. It can't be safety, it can't be addiction, in fact alcohol is one of the only drugs that can kill the user just from withdrawal alone. GABAa agonists are the only drugs in the world that can do that to the person. There is no straight line that can be drawn to separate alcohol from other drugs.
My opponent did make some good points about portugal, of course it wasn't just decriminalization, which is all Portugal did they didn't legalize anything. I'm not saying that would fix our problems here in the US alone. In fact just decriminalizing would likely make the drug death situation worse in our country. Simply because it doesn't solve the main issue of contamination, and we don't have readily available testing facilities for users to bring their sample to. This would likely cause more deaths than prohibition would. However, legalization with quality control nd regulatory standards, that would fix the death issue, at least partially. The next most important step is simple education. Users need to be educated on what drugs they can and can't mix, lethal doses, how to spot the symptoms of addiction before they become severe, etc. Our rehabilitation facilities need to take a new approach. We need to get away from only preaching abstinence in those facilities and instead teach people how to have better relationships with the drugs they love. If the person would want to completely quit then that option and type of therapy should still be available. However, it shouldn't be the only option. In Sweden they have rehab facilities that allow heroin addicts to come in twice a day, receive therapy, go through some drug education, and receive their drug of choice.
Those approaches Portugal took outside of their drug reform is great. That doesn't take away the positive effects that the reform has had. We should take a similar approach, make sure the infrastructure and system sets itself up to be able to effectively implement the reform. Reform needs to happen across the board, from education to drug therapy to the laws surrounding drugs.
This was a good debate, Thank you Lancelot for accepting and taking the time to write well written responses.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I will admit that I have a bias towards Pro in this conversation. However, the resolution was really teed up for Con to hit this out of the park. All Con needed to do was find two drugs, that clearly should not be legalized, and those drugs could even be theoretical. If a newly discovered drug has a psychoactive effect that will lead to permanent brain damage 72% of the time it should not be legalized. The catch-all statement of "all" was a huge mountain to climb, and I had no idea how Pro would do it.
Pro did not do it. However, Con never put Pro away. Con talked in circles about addiction issues and overall social weight. And therein contradicted himself, explaining how the majority of addicts are high-functioning productive members of society. Con speculated a few times on a variety of issues and while being creative, it really undermined his case when Pro pointed out the lack of evidence. In the balance of the arguments, Pro was crisper, rebutted well, and painted a better picture. Pro did not deal with the All part of the reso very well, however, Con did not deal with it at all.
I am surprised Pro did not look at the regulatory framework in Canada for cannabis and reverted to Portugal and France, which are decriminalized and unregulated.
Both debaters argued with a total view passion of the concept, and Con lost the opportunity of the individual silver bullet to snipe a win. Con is usually very good at identifying these trap elements, so I feel that the passion for the subject clouded the view of the actual resolution. Pro did not forfeit any rounds and deserves the conduct point. I think this debate brought up a bunch of secondary small debate subjects, and I would be happy to participate in any of those.
Thank you for the great content, and the opportunity to give my opinion. I appreciate it.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I think when it comes to weighing what issues are most important in this debate, I'm just not getting enough reason to weigh issues of freedom/liberty over more tangible harms. I know a large part of Pro's argument comes from the position that harms are worse with drugs that are currently legal, and while I take his point, I don't think that does anything to move the needle. I can acknowledge that there are hypocrisies in existing drug policies and see that legalization of these particular drugs is still damaging, even if the harms they cause are less than the harms of currently legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. In fact, the argument could have been made that their legalization is part of the reason they're so harmful, and that piling on with more legal drugs doesn't yield a positive impact just because those drugs cause lesser harms.
Still, there's a lot to take in here with regards to the actual harms of these drugs, and I think both sides could have done a better job in this department. Pro argues extensively about the chemistry of these drugs, and while that point is interesting, I don't think it does much for his position except limit the degree of harm caused by these drugs, assuming that they're not adulterated. I think the better point is that those adulterants are only likely to be in these drugs currently because they are illegal, i.e. the chief cause of harm is the adulterants and legalizing them removes those adulterants. Pro also argues that legalization reduces the number of instances where law enforcement actively utilizes drug laws to inflict harms by planting drugs or just securing larger prison sentences that aren't warranted. I think the latter could use more explanation (there are good points there but Pro doesn't spend much time fleshing them out), but the former is decent, albeit limited in actual quantity of cases to a couple of examples.
Con's argument to this effect is initially strong, arguing that an increase in the number of people using these drugs (both sides kind of just assume that will happen) yields an increase in the number of addicts and he shows pretty clearly that addiction is bad. I don't think he's winning on the numbers of addicts, and while the adolescent point initially looks like it could bolster it, the argument just seems to disappear after R2. The trouble with this argument is that, while I buy that the number of addicts would increase, it's more difficult to buy that their circumstances would be anywhere near as bad as they are now with the presence of adulterants. I think when Con drops the issue of adulterants, it kind of sinks the whole argument that more addicts is worse than leaving these drugs illegal, mainly because the vast majority of harms are associated with the adulterants, not the addiction (bad though that is). I think Pro also makes the point well that different levels of addiction/abuse make that harm more variable than Con lets on. I think what could potentially have bolstered this point the most was the argument about regulation or lack thereof. I don't love the fact that Pro is still defining how his system would work all the way out in R3, and some of his claims about how the system would function seem to rely on some pretty loose assumptions of how these drugs would enter the market and be regulated. I think there was room to argue that this system might not be much better than the existing black market, relying on sufficient chemists to monitor marketed products and the assumption that the drug companies peddling them would not modify the recipe in ways that might not be easily caught, introducing their own adulterants. There just isn't enough of an argument here, though - Con keeps his points too general to the failures of a hybridized system rather than engaging with the specifics of Pro's system. I also just don't buy that cartels would assume substantial control over the government. That scenario needed more warrants and evidence for what happens in a legal system.
Overall, while Pro did forfeit a round (hence Conduct), I think he's winning on bigger issues of safe use of drugs in the absence of black market adulterants and preventing abuses of the legal system that cost lives. While Con has some solid points about addiction, they just don't gain the kind of steam they need to overcome these issues.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
AHHHHHGHHH! I so wanted to give this debate to con, I was looking and looking for a way to a W and just couldn't connect enough dots to do it.
Here are the issues I had with COn's arguments:
1) Resolution was stated as: "I am arguing for Drug Prohibition and defending that all psychoactive substances should not be legalized."
This a ridiculously constrictive constraint as using the word ALL includes Alcohol, which would mean arguing for the prohibition of Alcohol as well.
Now, I could overlook this because COn made voluminous arguments about addiction and the reason for the prohibition of psychoactive drugs should be based on problems arising from addiction. So okay, I can generally assume con meant to say "all highly addictive psychoactive substances" Con makes some great arguments about addiction and uses great sources. If only this was the only hurdle for Con...
2) Con then states "Psychoactive substances are easier to abuse than any of the previous three and will require more government enforcement & maintenance to reduce danger."
The key word here is "danger." Pro has an incredibly easy time defeating this argument by simply citing statistics of a less addictive drug, Alcohol, as being more deadly and dangerous.
What Con could have argued instead would be that the addiction of a psychoactive drug prevents a person from understanding the risks, and loses the cognitive freedom to choose. Losing mental freedom affects the quality of life, and would not be so easily countered with the death statistics of Alcohol. The "dangers" would then be identified in opportunity costs associated with the loss of freedom. Con never made this connection.
Pro easily showed the dangers of the manufacture of toxic unregulated drugs, so he had that as a winning argument. He did make a mistake comparing drug statistics with France and Portugal instead of using a competing study within the USA Studies from other countries frequently fall into the apples-and-oranges trap as there are many other variables at play when it comes to drug use and drug culture. So Pro lost that argument and the source point. Pro ends up winning the whole shebang at the end with the: "alcohol and tobacco kill more people a year than all other drugs combined, and by a huge margin"
Sources to Con, Arguments to Pro.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Two days left and no votes so far. Here goes.
Both sides start off making competing claims about the effects of legalization. I can accept that making drugs illegal means that more people will be arrested, though it's unclear how harmful all of these drugs will be. The word "all" in the resolution makes me think that Con is best off picking a few drugs and showing the harms of legalizing those (date rape drugs, for example). Pro responds to the studies given, arguing that addiction itself is not the issue but that contamination is. I end up not completely certain about whether legalization + regulation would save lives, but that leaves the impact of the number of people arrested, which gives this debate to Pro. I also think some of Pro's points were better supported with research. While Con had a number of counters, a number of them were speculative, such as poking holes in a potential regulatory system without showing why those problems are likely to arise.
The only debate I’m willing to have on here is really to do with drug prohibition. I am a geoscience major and have studied climate change and weather, but my area of expertise in this type of setting is certainly drugs and pharmacology.
Sure. I think we are on the same side of a few fences. Lets message and see what we can come up with.
Would you like to have a debate with me?
Sorry for the late response. I haven't actually seen much research on legalization, but it sounds interesting. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and my internet is on and off. Once that gets sorted out, I'll take a look.
I am talking about legalization same way alcohol and cannabis are sold.
Are you referring to decriminalization or legalization? Those are different things.
That would actually be a REALLY fascinating debate. (Having witnessed both Savant and Mps's debates.)
Would you like to set up a debate between us? With the title and resolution of your choosing as long as it revolves around drug decriminalization?
I think it’s honestly much easier to argue for legalization of a drug like heroin for example than it is alcohol in terms of safety and pharmacology.
I'm referring to the more dangerous ones that are already illegal, not more common drugs like alcohol. I think it would be hard to give someone alcohol without them knowing, as it has a distinctive taste. Also, I'm not sure how commonly GHB and rohypnol are used ethically. (There are more ethical alternatives that achieve similar enjoyment.) A lot more people would miss alcohol if it was banned, so it's not an equal comparison.
You can make the case for legalizing them (they're used legally in other countries), but I think it's harder than the case for alcohol or marijuana.
Thanks for the vote, however even though you voted for me I must combat something you said. “Date rape drugs for example” alcohol is the most “dare rape” drug on earth. Date rape isn’t a class of drugs. What drugs are you talking about exactly? GHB? Xanax? GHB is made by our own bodies and is a wonderfully enjoyable drug. Xanax is used for many different things and is also very enjoyable. There is no such thing as a date rape drug. Benzodiazepines are the ones usually used for that type of behavior, outside of alcohol. But the vast, vast majority of people use those drugs to enjoy their night or life.
Thx for the vote!
I was thinking more about picking a particular substance, like ghb or rohypnol. Though I suppose mps could argue that there's no point in banning them so long as the other drugs you listed are still available to attackers.
<3.
Would you guys like to vote on this?
It's a medium to slightly long read.
Thanks for your vote, I have no issue with it.
But if I used the argument about date-rape drugs, Mps would have easily countered it because it's such a loose category that it could refer to any substance that makes you lose consciousness. For instance, ketamine, PCP, alcohol, Xanax, morphine, etc all considered date rape drugs.
I'll try to vote on this one if I have enough downtime.
Sure, I'll start working on one. Always interested in this topic.
Np homie
Thanks man.
I'll create 3 separate troll debates with 12 hours response time. As long as you don't forfeit for any of them, I can reinstate your voting privileges.
Even if you type one word response, it counts.
Drop a vote?
I used to be able to vote, then they made changes and I couldn't, haven't bothered to find out why, I have faith in Sir Lancelot to help me.
I have challenged a lot of people to debate but no takers. I think the genius thing scares them off :)
I'm pretty busy with work, I keep forfeiting because there isn't enough time, give me 24 hours next time so I don't miss it, thanks bud.
Check the qualifications. It specifically says no forfeited rounds in order to get voting rights, and you forfeited 2/3 debates.
^^^^^ "Finish 3 debates with an open voting system without forfeiting rounds."
Looks like I still can't vote
Thanks, guys!
I appreciate it
Can't promise but I'll give it a shot in the next week. I always enjoy reading your debates.
I will. I am making my way through it. BTW thanks for the vote, and you brought up a fair point with me saying cowardly. Point taken.
Would you guys like to vote?
Should be able to get to this this weekend.
This debate was much, much better from both people including myself. Give a vote on thi one too when you get the time.
Thanks for the discussion, Mps.
When I recreate this argument, I’ll be Pro this time and see if I can win against someone random by defending legalization.
The worst part is I typed out a full response lmao. Just got up to do something and didn’t come back in time.
Basically what you said about alcohol being safer and easier to manage isn’t true. Heroin is far safer toxicologically than alcohol. So is ketamine, LSD, Oxycodone, psilocybin, etc. so my response was basically just saying that.
All good bro.
Happens to me too. 😂
My bad man, totally forgot about this.
What are your opinions on the subject?
Absolutely, I'll read through the debate on completion and vote my decision.
Hopefully Lancelot debates me through the final round this time. I would appreciate it if you weigh in and judge the end the debate, after our conversations. If Lancelot actually comes with some ammunition on this one, everyone who reads the debate could learn a lot.
Go on ahead
Interested?
I made myself Con.