All drugs should be legal
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
It's a political argument, so I think BoP should be shared toward the ultimate goal of a resolution. At which point, voters can give argument point based on who's resolution was closer to their initial claim. Con is welcome to deny this and argue for an organic development of the BoP instead.
I'm not picky.
Good luck!!
Most drugs are addictive chemicals and block psychological inhibitory systems.
Drugs cause harm to more than the individual.
Drugs harm isn't exclusive to the individual any more than suicide or mental illness.
Most drugs and addictive chemicals are immoral.
It is my belief that the state doesn't have to jail people who are guilty of an offense. Specific to drugs, I believe we should force rehabilitation and psychiatric assistance in those shown to be clinically addicted. Jail time should be reserved specifically for dealers and gangsters.
I could focus on one of them due to the title but that wouldn't be very interesting.
"Drug use itself does not harm other people. The act of selling drugs does not necessarily harm other people because it's no different than selling cigarettes or alcohol which are legal drugs. "
"The only thing that hurts people is their actions while they're on drugs. If the person uses the drug responsibly, there won't be any issue. "
"As for suicide, it is the same thing that I said about drugs. The act of suicide in of itself is not harmful to anybody else.Except in the rare exception that somebody jumps off a building and lands on somebody. For this case, I would say the same thing I said about committing a crime while on drugs. The person did not commit suicide responsibly, so if for some strange reason they lived, they should be prosecuted for it. "
"They're only immoral if you're against slow self harm. Most people are not. Most people are okay with alcohol and cigarettes, so there is no reason to hold other drugs to a different standard. "
"To the first statement, if there is no crime, then the court should not be involved in the first place. The very fact that you want people not to go to jail for it reveals that you don't actually think it's a crime. "
"If drugs were legal, dealers wouldn't even exist anymore, so if you want dealers in jail so badly, then why not get rid of them by legalizing drugs? Then we'd have dispensaries with strict regulations. Furthermore, If we made drugs illegal. The dispensaries wouldn't sell every drug because some would get more popular and they would restrict their "menu" like a restaurant would. So this would even lower the amount of drugs used because if we made drugs exclusive in the dispensaries via the will of the market, people will gravitate more towards the popular drugs by default. Furthermore, people are more likely to kick a drug addiction if they don't get arrested or sentenced in any way. Forced rehab generally doesn't work and makes the problem worse. People need to be ready for rehab of their own free will. "
"Would you court order somebody to go to the dentist? How about the doctor?"
"You could do this, but keep in mind that we're aiming for a resolution here, So excluding one drug does not win you the debate, You have to prove that your solution will ultimately work better than mine. So if you exclude one drug, then I just exclude that drug and My solution was closer than your solution. I made this very clear in the description of the debate. "
What would you specifically count as psychoactive drugs?
Wouldn't people do drugs even if they're illegal?
Doesn't making drugs illegal have it's own inherent harm by creating illegal drug dealers?
Wouldn't it be better to treat it as a medical issue?
Wouldn't a drug addict have better chances of getting clean out in the world with the potential to work and make money and get clean rather than being in jail?
Don't you think we can come up with a better solution than using the criminal justice system in this case?
It’s hard to boil this down to the issues that are specifically different between the two sides.
Both sides appear to acknowledge that jail time shouldn’t necessarily be set for drugs, that misusing drugs cause social harm and harm above the level of individuals (such as crimes).
Con appears to be arguing for a scenario with illegal drugs and less harsh penalties - and pro appears to be arguing for the same but with drugs legal.
Both sides need to clearly demonstrate to me what bad things will happen if drugs are legalized (con), or what bad things happen with drugs being illegal that won’t happen if drugs are legal (pro).
To start off with: Con almost completely nulifies every benefit pro listed by agreeing that drugs - whilst remaining legal - should not be treated as harshly.
Pro specifies that legalization would eliminate dealers - and that harmful drugs wouldn’t be sold by dispensaries - a point that con points out would likely not eliminate dealers. Con clearly show the harm here - that lack of appropriate legislation may hinder the states ability to response in these cases.
Con elaborates on specific harms by showing a social impact of drugs, and impact to those around them - but this appears to be an implicit argument that having the drug illegal eliminates these harms: which he didn’t support. Con could have argued that drugs remaining illegal would reduce their use and impact - but he didn’t. I don’t believe pro disagrees with the harms con outline , but feels this is misuse and should not be treated as a legal issue. A part of his case is arguing that being illegal gives the ability to offer assistance and deal with the problem.
This wasn’t the sum of what was said, but there was a lot of talk of morality, whether drugs harm the individual or a wider group, and others that I don’t feel we’re particularly useful in eliminating harm.
Given that both plans were almost the same, the main elaborated difference here was that in cons plan, the illegality is used to provide help, and target drug dealers. Pros argument that dealers would be eliminated was well undermined by con.
The criteria for this debate appears to be who has the better plan. As the plans are mostly for the same, I feel the additional benefits con listed were *just* enough to make it seem like a better plan, and to effectively demonstrate a clear harm of pros plan. As a result, while I could have potentially awarded this as a draw I think dealer aspect, and the aspect around forcing treatment raised by con were sufficient to tilt the needle his way.
Arguments to con. All other points tied.
It happens. I lost a daily chess match for an online tournament the other day because I went 3 days without checking it and the guy happened to move fast after spending 2 months taking 3 days per move. I was super sad about it. But it's cool because I still won the tournament round, lol
Cross-examination of both my opening arguments and my conclusory arguments is welcome.
Wow, I forgot I accepted this debate to be honest. Good thing I remembered like an hour before the timer.
Duly noted
https://www.huxley.net/ - author was named Aldous Huxely, Brave New World is a fictional dystopian novel. Very interesting read, I assume, since I haven't read it.
Edit: Holy shit I'm tired, I'm going to sleep after I respond to Killshot.
No I haven't, what's it about?
Have you ever read "brave new world"? It's quite interesting.
On another note: I wrote all my sources and formatted my response around APA-style citations then realized that wasn't required.
I won't be able to post for this right away because I'm jumping off at least a few hours. I will make sure this debate is my first priority when I get back though. Thanks for the acceptance!!