Instigator / Pro
0
1517
rating
11
debates
59.09%
won
Topic
#2496
All drugs should be legalized.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
To whoever joins this debate, best of luck. If the Con wants to try and either message me questions or comment questions for me, I will do my best to answer them, but I'm not making a guarantee due to my schedule. Lastly, before we start the debate, to structure the debate, I use a system like this
1. Main point.
A. Impacts to show what happens if we don't solve the main point.
B. Another impact if present.
I. Roman numerals to show sub impacts if applicable.
This little bit is a copy and paste, so all these points might not be in every debate I'm in.
At the beginning, I'll establish a framework, but Con can challenge it if they feel it isn't good for the debate. I want as little as possible standing in the way of Con doing what they need to win. Only rule is no new args in last speech.
Round 1
Framing - These are just some little points to give the debate structure but could be contested by my opponent.
1. Legalized shall be defined as "lawful to buy and sell for consensual use with regulation". This definition is key to still be able to preemptively stop the use of date rape drugs as well as dealers of such a harmful substance. This logic already applies to some areas of legality, Such as guns. Gun salesman are legally obligated to not sell to anyone they feel is commiting a crime or going to commit a crime with a gun they purchase, And this logic should be applied to drugs. This definition is also key because we can regulate certain drugs to only be sold with a pharmacists/doctors approval as well as ensuring the FDA can check the safety and apply the necessary warnings to any drug being sold.
My Case
1. Personal autonomy is the basic idea that an individual should have full control of their own body. This is a very important concept and one of the biggest barriers in the modern day to fully achieving this ideal is governments around the world controlling what you can and can't put in your body. We must take any step possible to forward personal autonomy for multiple reasons.
A. If we allow the government to say that it is bad for us to put drugs into our body, Then this opens the door for other substances to face this scrutiny. These could lead to huge ramifications
I. The government could decide that some foods, Ingredients, Or certain amounts of calories can't be taken in. While this might seem good on the surface, This actually leads to the erasure of tons of cultural foods. A great example is akutaq, An Alaskan Native dish. This is a desert that is made by using caribou or moose fat and berries. More modern versions may use straight lard and add sugar, But the premise is the same, It is an extremely unhealthy food. There are other examples across cultures globally, But if governments decide what food is and isn't acceptable, Then they could practically erase cultural foods, Which can lead to the death of a people if their culture is that meaningful to them.
II. If the government is given access to determining what physical items are adequate and inappropriate to put in our body, It isn't too much of a leap to assume this might lead to similar logic being established within our mental content. What if content that was interpreted to be against the government, Bad for your mental health, And artistically bad were simply illegalized. This could be a reality if we don't apply personal autonomy fully, Because if one thing isn't acceptable for consumption, Then nothing is. This leads to two main issues. Firstly, It could lead to cultural erasure. Cross-apply my previous argument about how bad that is. Secondly, It can lead to totalitarianism. If the state can erase all knowledge that challenges them in any way, Shape, Or form, Then it becomes impossible to muster the masses in a possible challenge. Without any sort of challenge, Either peacefully or otherwise, This leads to a state that has full control of your actions and strips all individuality and personality from you.
2. The legalization of all drugs would lead to a huge economic boost. This boost is simple enough, We take existing markets and highly tax them as luxury items. These profits the state would see can be used in a numerous amount of ways, Including in education budgets, Tax returns for poorer citizens, Or welfare programs, But most likely would go to something in a similar industry. This is how other industries work (gas taxes fund roads, Hunting license revenue and boat taxes fund Parks and Wildlife departments), So a tax on a legalized drug industry would probably go into efforts to regulate, Prevent use, And create state-run rehabilitation centers. This would probably result in less addiction and less of a negative impact from drugs than in the status quo since we can't tax the $360 billion industry according to Worldometers.
3. This isn't really an advantage to the plan like the other two were, But more of preemptive defense. Very simply, We've failed the war on drugs as of now. I already showed how large the industry was economically, And according to the CDC, In 2017 13. 4% of individuals used illegal drugs every month. What I'm getting at is that my opponent has to find some negative to legalizing all drugs besides over 10% of the population using them.
Conclusion
Since there's been no benefit to keeping drugs illegal and all we've done is keep this draconian attack on personal autonomy as well as lose out on billions in tax revenue, Vote Pro to reverse all this!
1) Personal autonomy is the basic idea that an individual should have full control of their own body.
This is perhaps the strongest argument he has brought forth, however, he contradicts himself because countless drugs alter your mind to be unable to decide properly for yourself. Consider that, you cannot even give consent to sex legally if you are under effects of alcohol and drugs. Pro's case only works for the very first time you take the drug. And then, problems occur. You become addicted, and the mind altering substance persuades you to absurd ideas that you would not normally agree to. It is incredibly difficult to reverse the physical effects of this. Even with personal autonomy and control, it takes 30 attempts on average to quit smoking. Alcohol similarly has a great amount of people who suffer the same idea. It's clear from personal testimony that drugs directly counter pro's argument.
A scientific study on why people compulsively drink alcohol note its powerful and dangerous effects on the mind, encouraging it to subconsciously drink alcohol, even while the consciousness says otherwise.
“There would literally be times where I’d be drinking directly from the bottle, crying, saying to myself, ‘I don’t want to be doing this,’” Wanda recalls. “But it was almost like being possessed.”
Now tell me, is possessed autonomy? Of course not. If alcohol and drugs only manipulated physical effect, perhaps pro's argument would work. Sadly, the mental effects prevent Arg1 from succeeding.
1A) Pro says the slippery slope of governmental control is a terrible idea, but you cannot compare merely "unhealthy" to completely deadly and life-ruining. Tell me, if I eat akutaq one time, will I be addicted to it for the rest of my life and suffer withdrawal from not eating Akutaq? Of course not. Food is not designed to have withdrawal symptoms. The statistics are easy to see in contrast: "More than 750,000 people have died since 1999 from a drug overdose.1 Two out of three drug overdose deaths in 2018 involved an opioid." Unless pro can proves mental health and unhealthy foods have similar withdrawal effects and deaths as drugs (after they take the drug, they have extreme difficulty preventing themselves from taking it again), this comparison is unfounded and absurd.
If the government is given access to determining what physical items are adequate and inappropriate to put in our body, It isn't too much of a leap to assume this might lead to similar logic being established within our mental content. What if content that was interpreted to be against the government, Bad for your mental health, And artistically bad were simply illegalized
What kind of logic is this? The proponents of illegalization are all thinking about people's suffering and their physical state of being. "Against the government" is an unfounded argument. All totalitarian arguments, negated.
2 The legalization of all drugs would lead to a huge economic boost
No. He does not account for how many more people would take drugs due to legalization, leading to calling sick, lost work days, not to mention the infinite value of a human life itself. Recovery centers for America notes, "Drug and alcohol use in the United States costs $1.45 trillion in economic loss and societal harm annually. This includes $578 billion in economic loss and $874 billion dollars in societal harm through quality of life adjustment and premature loss of life." Now I don't know about you, but, I'm pretty sure 1.45 trillion -- and this number would go even bigger if we legalized ALL drugs -- is way way bigger than $360 billion. So the economic boost is a lie and completely flops against the lost.
Conclusion: Pro's world is an even bigger loss of autonomy thanks to drugs altering our minds to thinking we're possessed. More people suffer, and more people die. The amount of money lost would stack up and up higher, while pro looks merely at the industry finance gain without thinking of the bigger picture. There is a reason that we illegalize some drugs in each country.
Round 2
I'm going to extend framework and defend my case.
Framework
1. Extend the original point. It wasn't attacked or violated, but I just want it in the round for future constructives.
My Case
1. My argument about personal autonomy still stands. My opponent's argument is that the substance causes multiple effects that lower your autonomy, but this has multiple issues.
A. Alcohol and tobacco are already legal and that is the majorative evidence of my opponent's points. This leads to my dropped third point that 10% of people try illegal drugs. What does this mean for the debate? That the only issue is the government's attack on our autonomy. We can't solve drugs issues because the drugs my opponent's brings up are legal in a majority of nations and all the other drugs are already tried, so the only question is what can we stop from affecting our autonomy? The government. I specifically said he had to prove what would change with legalization, and he failed to do that, in relation to bodily autonomy. We can't solve drugs hurting autonomy, but we can solve government.
B. Now we have to get into a comparison of the government's autonomy level versus drugs in relation to each other. If you were to get arrested for drugs, you go to jail, which already has a highly pervasive drug trade in it that gets less attention than outside. So, going to jail raises your chances of being an addict from 10% normally to 65% in prisons. This means that even if you are against drugs, sending them to jail is the worst option to take. The next issue of autonomy that was brought up was chances of things like rape. 17.6% of women have experienced an attempted or completed rape and men are at 3%. Prison rates are 21.2% for women and 4.3% for men. If we're truly concerned about lowering the lost autonomy of rape, we don't need to put drug users or drug dealers in this situation, especially since 46.1% of inmates are in prison for drug charges. Prisons get rid of autonomy a whole hell of a lot worse than drugs. The last argument he made was this "possesion" argument, but in prisons, your every movement is watched, approved, or punished. Prison is still much worse.
2. On the impact of cultural erasure, my opponent's only argument was that drugs cause deaths and are addictive. Sugar is just as addictive as cocaine, and sugary drinks lead to the deaths of 180,000 worldwide yearly. There is an argument that unhealthy food is just as dangerous, if not more so, then drugs. On top of this, New York City put legislation on the amount sizes of soda cups. To say that it's a slippery slope argument when it's already happening is simply ignoring the truth. I would say that this path is already happening and we need to take drastic action to push the pendulum away from that. Also, my opponent never challenged the part that sugar limitations would lead to cultural erasure which leads to the death of peoples, so extend that part of the argument as dropped.
A. Also, as an addition to this point, healthier food is $550 dollars more per person a year, so if unhealthy foods start getting legislated out of existence, this would put undo burdens on impoverished families, either leading to malnutrition or the inability to get them other things (clothes, supplies for school, etc.) as a tradeoff.
3. His argument about the inability to choose our own media is also gaining traction in the world. Since the 60's Europe and the United States have seen a large rise in legislation against hate speech, or at the very least, calls for it. How does this apply? What is legislation against hate speech besides the government saying that it doesn't view some ideas as worth being presented in the marketplace of ideas. Some countries go farther to say that saying the government is bad doesn't deserve to make it to the marketplace of ideas. This limitation is clearly an attack on our autonomous ability to intake any information we like and say whatever we like. Remember, this is just an impact to personal autonomy, and why it has to be upheld.
4. Next, we get into the economic arguments, and how my opponent said that drugs cost more than they would create. I have two answers.
A. He ceded my point about how taxation works in certain industries and how these taxes would go to actually creating rehab centers that allow for lower drug rates because addicts get rehab instead of prison, so cross apply that to my opponent's entire point about how much drugs cost society as well as the fact that the number would go up.
B. He ceded my final point that says we've lost the war on drugs. He has to show why it would get worse if they were legalized, and he hasn't besides an unwarranted sentence about how it would go up if legalized. Cross apply my argument that we've lost, it doesn't get worse than a 10% addiction rate, and cross apply my argument that we would build more rehabs and addiction treatment centers and we would actually have a lower addiction rate, leading to that number getting lowered, only if we can legalize and tax this industry.
5. Extend my untouched argument that we've lost the war on drugs and my opponent has to prove it gets better. I cross applied this multiple times where needed.
Conclusion
Con presents no independent points and case has been properly defended, so over to Con.
1A) Nonsense. Just because something is already legal does not mean it should remain legal. He admitted that nothing can be done about drugs being addicting. Therefore government should protect people by preventing consumption of it.
1B) What? The site notes:
The substantial prison population in the United States is strongly connected to drug-related offenses. While the exact rates of inmates with substance use disorders (SUDs) is difficult to measure, some research shows that an estimated 65% percent of the United States prison population has an active SUD.
This means that 65% of people in prison are in there for drug related crime, not that, if you go into prison, you have a 65% chance of becoming drug addicted. This is such a misinterpretation I don't even know how pro connected this idea together.
Secondly, pro notes an increase of 4% autonomy lost with addition of rape. This seems more of a problem with prison than illegalizing drugs. Considering the punishment can range from anywhere from small fine to prison, this "autonomy lost" is incredibly vague compared to my very solid stance on how people cannot quit these drugs. Pro has noted I have mostly stuck to legal drugs. This is because they are on the tamer side of all drugs, and imply the power of illegal drugs, due to lack of statistics on them. For instance, 95% of smokers fail to quit smoking on their own. Pther illegal drugs are even more addicting than this. I will extend this argument to truly crack pro's case.
Cocaine has been noted to affect mental ability in an unstable manner:
"Short-Term Effects
Short-term health effects of cocaine include:
- extreme happiness and energy
- mental alertness
- hypersensitivity to sight, sound, and touch
- irritability
- paranoia—extreme and unreasonable distrust of others
Long-Term Effects
Some long-term health effects of cocaine depend on the method of use and include the following:- snorting: loss of smell, nosebleeds, frequent runny nose, and problems with swallowing
- smoking: cough, asthma, respiratory distress, and higher risk of infections like pneumonia
- consuming by mouth: severe bowel decay from reduced blood flow
- needle injection: higher risk for contracting HIV, hepatitis C, and other bloodborne diseases, skin or soft tissue infections, as well as scarring or collapsed veins"
So not only do you lose your mental stability in short term, long term you hurt your own body, which leads to you ending up in hospital and have to depend on doctors and maybe even life support. This is the biggest lost of autonomy possible. Pro has no way to negate this.
2) Sugar is not the same....
Pro's very own source says: “The drug analogy is always a tough one because, unlike drugs, food is necessary for survival,” says Andy Bellatti, MS, RD, strategic director of Dietitians for Professional Integrity. Therefore we are free to dismiss all sugar and food related arguments.
Also, is pro seriously worried about 550$? Just buy the junk food. It's okay. You need it to survive. Wasting it on drugs however.... that only furthers my argument. You would now be in poverty and hungry, you can't think straight and your body hurts and... do I need to say more?
3) inability to choose our own media: I'm not seeing the connection here. Drugs legalization is a far cry from restricting media.
4) This entire argument is simply absurd. It would be like saying, let's make people spend money to gain diseases, so we can better develop hospitals. Why not just simply prevent the diseases in the first place? By con's logic, let's just ban all vaccines so people will spend absurd amount of money on insurance or hospital bills and go bankrupt supporting hospitals, due to being unvaccinated against diseases. Do you see how insane con's idea is?
Conclusion:
- con has dropped the fact that government can prevent loss of autonomy by discouraging taking the drugs
- con has poor comparison of food, which is necessary, versus drugs, that are not necessary
- con has dropped 1.45 trillion dollars lost with those needing health care and suffering under drug use.
Round 3
I'm going to extend the framework and defend my case.
Framework
1. Extend the original point. It wasn't attacked or violated, but I just want it in the round for future constructives.
My case
1. The debating will happen in the sub points.
A. Yeah, but they already are. It's the equivalent if you said that there's a genocide in China and there'd be a genocide in China if all drugs were legalized. It'd be there either way. That's my argument with tobacco and alcohol. Since you never offered a counter proposal compared to me defending the resolution, you advocate for the status quo. The status quo has alcohol and tobacco in it, so that isn't a unique reason to vote Con. This entire point of tobacco and alcohol is meaningless within this debate since I don't change anything in relation to those and neither do you. Those are going to happen anyways.
B. I'm going to divide this into the different points.
I. 65% percent of the United States prison population has an active SUD. This is the quote from my source. SUD means substance use disorder. I mean, all I can ask the judge to do is read. It says 65% of the prison population has a drug problem. That's what it says. Also, this was his only answer, meaning that if you read the statistic correctly, then you should buy that going to prison for drugs has no chance of solving your problem and might make it worse.
II. On the issue of rape, his only answer is that is an issue with prisons. Considering that an unchallenged number of 46.1% of people in prison are there for drug charges, my opponent thinks it's ok that all of these people deserve to have a 4% chance increase of rape because they decided to sell their personal autonomy. This doesn't flow as a coherent point for Con. Also, the fact that it's an issue with prisons means we shouldn't send drug users to those prisons, and since my opponent doesn't have a solution to prison rape and sexual assault, it stands as an issue.
III. This possession argument has its own issues. Even if drugs are net worse, because of how you access them, it's still better than prison. Someone chooses to use drugs the first time, meaning they used their autonomy to do something dangerous. Very few people willingly choose to start a prison sentence. I would argue that the initial choice of autonomy to use the drug outweighs all of the following issues.
2. To simply claim that all of the arguments go away because they're different even though I cited legislation against sugar means that my opponent is choosing to ignore a very obvious movement of legislature. I've proven there is legislative examples already on the books that say they want to start limiting sugar intake. Unless my opponent can prove why that won't move further, then it's appropriate to think that it might based on its addictiveness and unhealthiness they might move farther. Also, he hasn't challenged that this would lead to cultural erasure and death's of people, so if I win that sugar legislation will move forward without a strong support of personal autonomy (as well as the fact that it would be legalized since you could define sugar as a drug), then I win that it will lead to cultural erasure.
A. Two uniques issues with his argument about food prices.
I. I lead to less drug use through taxes on the drug industry. I know my opponent contested that, and I'll answer it in it's own point, but if I win that, cross apply that as an answer to this.
II. Drug use only affects those who choose to use drugs while higher food prices affect those who still use drugs (cross apply my point about 10% usage and we've lost the war on drugs) and everyone who is impoverished. If someone has to starve, I would rather have it be as preventable as possible by not raising the prices and only having it be the people who chose to take a substance that makes them tradeoff on food. One's going to happen, so which is worse, everyone who's poor, or just those who choose to take drugs.
3. It's about personal autonomy in general. The more you justify limiting personal autonomy, the more you get to do. Since he hasn't answered this point, if you think there's a chance that there's spillover, give this point to me.
4. The whole problem is the point my opponent ceded that we've lost the war on drugs and there is already a $360 billion industry we could tax. If we started taxing that, that money would get invested in lowering the already high drug usage rate. Using all these comparisons without even doing the work to try and show why his analogies apply is just Con's attempt to muddle this point so it looks absurd. 10% of people contribute to a $360 billion dollar industry already. If we taxed that money, then we could put those funds into funding rehab facilities. This would actually lower drug use, but we have to legalize the industry to tax it. The point still stands, don't let him calling it absurd negate the facts I've laid out and the logical link chain. This means that the costs of drugs go down, and we have nothing but the gain.
5. Extend my dropped point that we lost the war on drugs and drug use is already high. I cross applied it where necessary.
Conclusion
My case still stands and Con has no independent points.
1A) Whoever said I was advocating for status quo? Whose status quo? So long as I can prove even one drug should be banned, I can win this debate. I have suggested that alcohol and tobacco are already incredibly addicting and dangerous for persons. Pro says nothing will change, inferring drug consumption will remain, but scholarly research suggests otherwise, noting that even the contentious prohibition was successful in some ways: " National Prohibition succeeded both in lowering consumption and in retaining political support until the onset of the Great Depression altered voters’ priorities. Repeal resulted more from this contextual shift than from characteristics of the innovation itself."
Indeed, sources say that many countries even ban alcohol, despite legal in US:
BANNED ABROAD
*Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Kuwait, Libya, Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Somalia
*Pakistan, Qatar, Maldives, Iran, Bangladesh (excluding non-Muslims)
*Indonesia (prohibition in small business shops)
*Sri Lanka (curbs on women)
*UAE (prohibition in the emirate of Sharjah only)
II. Even if drugs are net worse, because of how you access them, it's still better than prison.
What does pro mean? If it's illegal drugs, then the drug trade is still immensely dangerous.
Very few people willingly choose to start a prison sentence.
Pro infers that if we illegalize drugs then few people would choose to use drugs. They still have freedom, but they are discouraged thanks to the horrible effects of drugs. Does that make sense?
2. Unless my opponent can prove why that won't move further
It won't move further. How much further could it move? There are only restrictions on sugar, not complete ban. This is because sugar is crucial to survive. So you cannot completely ban it. Pro's argument is flimsy on this part. Saying you can only eat one burger a day does not destroy an entire culture based on burgers.
II. I don't understand this. Either phrase this more clearly or drop it.
3. The more you justify limiting personal autonomy, the more you get to do.
Honestly, it really depends on the government. The US for example has three separate branches itself and even if we agreed to limit personal autonomy the amount of red tape and having 2/3 agreement combined with presidential veto ability, reduces the power to claim personal autonomy (not to mention we vote the representatives, so we have more control over whose point of view is implemented).
4) Pro keeps saying we lost the war on drugs but gives no sources for support, that is why I am free to drop this argument.
Also, his argument is paradoxical. Either 1 of 2 things happen:
1) Drugs are incredibly addictive and powerful, so rehabilitation is completely useless and all their money is wasted. Everyone suffers mentally, physically and economically
2) The rehabilitation is very successful and nobody takes drugs any more. Hurray! Except, nobody contributes to the drug industry now. So now the drug business is bankrupt and the effect is equivalent to if you illegalized drugs in the first place. The problem with this world is that you require more suffering for people to take drugs to contribute to the rehabilitation. Look, the most successful "rehabilitation" would be not taking the drug in the first place. Does that make sense?
Pro also says the taxes on the $360 billion can outweigh 1.45 trillion dollars of cost. Okay. Let's see.... Pro is advocating a 400% tax on drugs. Wow. Will anyone even buy the drugs any more? Isn't this the same as illegalizing it (government telling you not to buy it)? He just proved my argument.
*Clarification: Even though legally, there seems to be a big difference between government making drugs cost ten thousands of dollars, and punishing you with fines, the result is still you paying more money and having incredible difficulty to obtain the drug, so the end result is still the same.
Conclusion: Pro forgets that we are talking worldwide, so alcohol/tobacco legal may not be status quo. The slippery slope will not happen. The greater restriction on autonomy will not happen. And the financial lost is way too big. Let's keep illegal drugs illegal, and push for all dangerous drugs to be illegalized where possible.
Round 4
I'm going to extend my framework and defend my points.
Framework
1. Extend the point. It hasn't been violated, but I just want it for the last speech with new points after this.
My Case
1. The debating is going to happen in the sub points, again.
A. While there are a handful of nations that have illegal alcohol and maybe a couple micronations with illegal tobacco, this doesn't answer the inherent point that the majority of the world already has legalized alcohol and tobacco. What this means is that even if he is gaining independent reasons to vote based on these places that have alcohol illegalized, it is a small bonus at best due to the simply small number of people who would actually have this change.
I. My opponent said he isn't endorsing the status quo, but without any counter proposal from the beginning, we have to assume he's supporting the global status quo. He doesn't get to claim prohibition as a reason to vote Con since he never plainly stated he was endorsing a counter proposal of illegalizing all drugs. Without any specification through framing or counter proposals, it's fair to assume Pro supports the resolution and Con supports the status quo. Don't let him claim solving alcoholism in all the countries that have legalized alcohol since he never wanted to endorse a counter proposal.
II. All of my comparisons between drugs and prison apply to alcohol in these countries, so if I win prison is worse than drugs, this comparison of alcohol doesn't matter.
B. This was divided into individual points.
I. My opponent dropped that your chances of getting addicted to drugs goes up in prison, so if drugs are actually bad for people, then the last thing we should do is illegalize them so that people end up in drug filled prisons. This was a turn that makes any form of illegalization bad, meaning that this is a definitive reason why Con can't stop drug use, and actually makes it worse. Since I lower drug use rates by keeping drug users out of prisons, this is an independent reason to prefer Pro.
II. My opponent dropped this turn, meaning I actually prevent rapes happening to drug users by not sending them to prison. View this as an independent reason to prefer Pro.
III. The only comparison that my opponent didn't drop between prisons and drugs was the full possession argument. He said that since no one would willing walk into a prison to forcibly stay for 10 years, this proves there's an inherent deterrent effort to drug use. Don't buy his vaguely warranted at best argument and buy the argument that has been ceded every round that says 10% of people will use drugs. How many people willingly just go into prison for fun, signing once to stay for 10 years. A whole lot less than 10%. 10% of people willingly choose to start using drugs, but very few of these people want to go to prison. The fact they chose to start doing drugs, knowing they're illegal, means my opponent has a really high burden to prove that people willingly choose prison just like they willingly choose drugs. Drugs are like a contract you willingly signed, prisons are literally something you get thrown into and have to be stopped from escaping. Prison is worse for autonomy than drugs.
2. It could go a lot farther. His argument that it simply isn't possible is absurd. Sugars can achieved from fruits and vegetables, meaning sugar could be banned and supplemented from original sources. On top of this, there could be limits to intake that simply don't allow for certain cultural foods to be had. To simply put up that there is literally no way to regulate it farther is simply calling on the imagination of me or the judge, and if we can think of at least one, you've lost the argument.
A. Food prices was divided into sub points, so I'll keep the debate there so there's independent reasons to vote.
I. If I win that there's less drug users because of tax application, then cross apply that to this point.
II. As a side note, before I answer this, having a judge vote as a reason to win this point or this debate does not rely on my opponent understanding it. I'm going to try to reword it because education is important, but him saying "I don't understand" doesn't mean he negates the point, otherwise he could just say he doesn't understand anything and then he automatically wins. If you as the judge understand the point, either through the original explanation or this reexplanation, still vote, regardless of how well my opponent understood it. On the point itself, my point was that in the world of Pro, people who chose to do drugs originally don't get to afford food, while in the world of Con, all impoverished people can't afford food. If we had to choose which is worse, it's definitely the world of Con, meaning that you as a judge should value this point as going ot Pro.
3. I would argue that McCarthyism is proof that personal autonomy of the mind is not safe in the United States, as well as the hate speech examples I already brought up. Since there is already attacks in this area, if you think that guaranteeing personal autonomy in drug use has any chance of spillover, then I win this point as pro.
4. Just because my opponent has ignored point 5 from the beginning and has never engaged with that source since it was brought up and cross applied in every round does not mean I did not source it. Don't let his blatant ignoral of my point be a legitimate reason to think I never cited the 5th point in my first speech and then brought it up every single round as dropped my opponent. I'm going to answer my opponent's "double-bind" and then answer his argument about him having more money.
A. The double-bind is actually how the taxation works. The point is, if the rehab is ineffectual, drug use would go up, tax rates would go up, more money could be invested into these rehab facilities and finding alternative methods to solve drug use, and then it would eventually solve as more resources were going into this area, which would result in section two, less drug users, less need for rehabs, less taxes for the rehabs. The point is that the amount of money going into the structure is relevant to the amount of people needing it, meaning we never underfund or overfund the rehabilitation scenario I've set up. He's never really argue that's how the tax system works either since the beginning, and consistently shows why the system is better and better for drug use numbers.
B. On this numbers game, there's a couple of flaws.
I. He isn't creating $1.45 trillion dollars, this is money already lost in the status quo. That means, while drugs are illegalized, we lose that much money to drugs. If I can't solve drug use, but I get the taxation, I can at least drop that number to $1.09 trillion. Don't let my opponent claim he's solving $1.45 trillion dollars when we've lost the war on drugs and drugs are already used. Also, if I win that rehab numbers can even keep drug use constant, if not lower it, then he doesn't get to say this number goes up, meaning that I still make the world a little better.
II. If I win that I can drop drug use tremendously through the rehab system, then I solve a majority of his $1.45 trillion. This means that he is actually showing the amount of money my plan has to solve. Once again, since he is just showing how bad the status quo he advocates for is, if you think there is a chance to lower that number through Pro, you have to vote to lower that number.
5. Once again, extend this point. This proves we lost the war on drugs and the sources are in speech one when I first made the point. It's been cross applied where necessary.
Conclusion
Every attack Con has thrown at Pro has either been turned to show that Pro solves better, or at least shown that it isn't a warranted argument, so Pro's case still stands strong.
Since I lower drug use rates by keeping drug users out of prisons, this is an independent reason to prefer Pro.
What?? This is completely nonsensical. Here are the two worlds that we are living in, even if we assume pro is correct:
1) Drugs are illegal, and difficult to obtain. The 10% currently consuming illegal drugs go to prison (and are 65% of the prison population), and the drug trade continues on in prison. The amount of drug users increase is very little in this world. The same people who take drugs outside of prison become the same people who take drugs in prison.
2) All drugs are legal and easy to obtain. The current statistic for "Around one-third (34.2%) of adults aged 16 to 59 had taken drugs at some point during their lifetime" becomes far worse, as more dangerous and unhealthy drugs are now commonly available to users. The amount of drug user vastly increases and is incredibly dangerous to society.
I hope that clears things up.
The fact they chose to start doing drugs, knowing they're illegal, means my opponent has a really high burden to prove that people willingly choose prison just like they willingly choose drugs. Drugs are like a contract you willingly signed, prisons are literally something you get thrown into and have to be stopped from escaping. Prison is worse for autonomy than drugs.
An article notes, there are three major reasons for choosing drugs:
- "Emotional: Feeling they need drugs to fill a void in their lives (whether it’s stress, trauma, relationship issues or more)
- Physical: Feeling like they need the physical effects of a high or low to physically feel better
- Psychological: General feelings of inadequacy towards themselves or the world, so they use drugs to boost their confidence and self-esteem and ability to make sense of things"
The problem with this is that pro assumes that everyone is a perfectly rational thinker. That they have attempted to solve the problem and that no other solution will work. That they are able to take the drug merely one time in order to boost themselves back into a normal person. But illegal drug use is very emotional based, and impulsiveness of those in depression hardly think straight. Consider that it is even considered a mental illness to be solved; this clearly shows that the user's supposed autonomy is at stake and definitively absurd. Strong research has suggested the people do not come up with the best/correct/rational decisions of their supposed "free will" with mental illness proving to be a problem:
In Study 1, participants were asked to make and explain their decisions in a free-response format, as well as to describe their prior experiences with similar situations. The results suggest that those with more depressive symptoms make decisions that are less likely to further their interests. We also identified several interesting associations between features of decision-making and the presence of depressive symptoms.
...Moreover, few associations between depressive symptom severity and decision-related goals and priorities were evident, suggesting that the previously-exposed difficulties of depressed individuals with decision-making were largely the result of their failure to use effective decision-making techniques.
Tell me, would it be "autonomy" to point a gun at you and demand you to say "Hi, I'm a dummy."? The coercion and force of violence, of death, is definitively impacting your emotional state and your instinct to survive overrides your other thoughts 99% of the time, and you would likely respond, "hi, I'm a dummy", despite your existing free will to not reply anything back. Similarly, depression puts in a similar stressful mental situation just as coercion, and it would be no different from signing a contract with a gun to your head (especially considering the rate of suicide of those in depression). Death, or suffering. A false dichotomy. Unlike the gun to the head, people can always try other methods to solve the problems that drug use tries to solve. As such, most drug users would not have the autonomy the pro claims, due to the causes of drug use. Remember that con has still not negated, that only one time, can be said to be autonomy. The rest, far overwhelms the users' choices, and leads them down a dark, lost past to oblivion for eternity.
Arg 2
Sugars can achieved from fruits and vegetables, meaning sugar could be banned and supplemented from original sources
Some people are allergic to fruits and vegetables. The government cannot risk such a massive riot on the sugar source, especially as it is incredibly important in the food industry.
all impoverished people can't afford food
pro has not countered my admittance that they could buy any fast food, unhealthy food, they wished for any low price so long as they can survive.
3. The way people think being restricted is completely different from the way people treat their physical bodies.
4A. That takes extra time and seems counter productive. Wouldn't it just be faster to reinforce the idea of drug ban and crack down on those that take the drug? Look, pro thinks that he can solve drugs problem by having more people take drugs. This is very problematic. It is like saying, let's legalize human trafficking, so that government can gain money to resolve human trafficking. The root of the problem is not resolved and rather, encourages which produces more suffering and problems. As such, the $1.45 trillion lost to health care and increasing in pro's world is still drastic problem. Remember, merely because US has lost the war on drugs does not mean that other countries should give up.
A powerful research article suggests that US actually had not done enough to solve the problem! It had not regulated it under federal law.
"By regulating drug use rather than criminalizing it, per capita recreational drug use in the United States would be the same or even lower than it currently is, safer for consumers, and far less costly to society in terms of socioeconomic harm. This failed policy has not only affected U.S. society in such a harmful way that it almost cannot be overstated, but it has also resulted in quite needless drug cartel violence in Mexico and other countries. Included here is a pragmatic suggestion for reform of U.S. drug policy."
Conclusion: The context for using drugs, and the context after drugs, are both troubling, as it infers that pressure and threats should not be punished, should you be coerced to use drugs "out of your own free will", even without physical violence. Throughout this debate I have shown that the autonomy is severely lost, and that pro's argument is nonsensical. It is not comparable to food, which is needed to survive. It is counter productive as it would have even more drug users contributing to money spent on health care, rather than focusing on cracking down harder on drugs and trying better to help the reformation out of the money we already have. The war on drugs was misled and there were only restrictions, compared to complete bans, which would have been stronger and more preferable. It's a clear con vote here.
Round 5
Forfeited
Pro has dropped all arguments.
So.
Vote me if:
- autonomy prevented by taking drugs (mental, physical harm)
- Food is essential so cannot be banned
- massive economy harm
- US battles drugs the wrong way (must criminalize it rather than mere regulation, fulfilling my burden of proof)
bump
I think drug users should be rehabbed or left alone depending on the circumstances.
bump
Sorry for forfeiting the last round. Life got to me. I apologize.
I might be willing to debate you on this sometime.
vote.
If you legalize all uses of all drugs, then the world will be more dangerous.
If you only legalize the bare minimum, then you are basically not legalizing drugs.