All drugs should be legalized
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
In this debate I would like to show why all drugs, from cannabis to fentanyl should be legalized and sold in dispensaries across the US.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r9efWyga1_KjF37Pn6PBauqc9RhqjSSxtBQ2ls_bNsI/edit?usp=sharing
These are some very long arguments, and some of them are filled with technical jargon I don't fully understand, so I am extending some benefit of the doubt that stuff like the name brands and effects of specific drugs as described by Pro are true in cases that aren't contradicted by Con. This may seem unfair, but Pro clearly demonstrates an understanding of pharmacology that exceeds my own, whereas Con's is about the same/slightly below. The DART voting standards don't really address professional authority on a subject, likely because it is difficult to demonstrate, much less verify, in an online debate. Regardless, I deem Pro's knowledgeability sufficient to tie sources.
As far as arguments go, there are some excellent points raised by both. The similarity of drugs like heroin and meth to their prescription 'cousins' is even more extensive than I realized. Con's point that certain drugs can have wildly different effects on different people is valid, if somewhat undermined by the attribution to 'magic' as opposed to individual biological and psychological differences.
Con's assertion about organized criminal violence increasing as a response to the legalization was disappointingly unsourced, given that several countries, such as Portugal as Pro mentioned, have experimented with decriminalization and legalization of a wide variety of previously illegal substances, so data on this front definitely exists.
Outside of that, the rest of the argument essentially boils down to a disagreement about the harm of drugs vs. the freedom of individuals to choose. Overall, the strongest and deciding argument was the comparison by Pro of illegal drugs to prescription ones.
Pro argues that the infamy of the drug legalization debate is due to media hype and incompetent journalism. And that poor education is the common denominator for drug-related deaths. He states that the rates of drug deaths are due to the government outlawing drugs, forcing users to resort to illegal means of obtaining them. The other way is they contaminated the drug supply in order to perpetuate the anti-drug propaganda.
Con states Pro is going off-topic and is lacking consideration for the damage drugs cause children, teens, and babies. Con mentions that the medical benefits of drugs are simply not good enough to even consider legalizing them through implying there are more cons than pros. Con points out how date-rape drugs will make it easier for predators to abduct their prey. He also states that legalizing drugs would cause a short-lived increase in gang violence.
Pro and Con go back and forth. Pro questions Con’s knowledge on the subject by comparing illegal drugs to prescription drugs. Pro mentions Portugal already legalizes drugs and their death rate is low, compared to a country like Switzerland. Con shows sources that illustrate how quitting drugs is difficult and results in severe side effects. However, Con’s other claims remain unsubstantiated like his statements about the increase in gang violence and that it will destroy lives. Pro’s original arguments emphasize that drugs can be used safely and that education needs to teach how to use drugs safely instead of preaching abstinence. Con argues these drugs are too dangerous and Pro counters by pointing out the law enables things like alcohol which is equally as harmful and that these things are a double standard. Pro also argues that 85% of drug users are functional members of society and aren’t addicts. Pro also says legalizing drugs can reduce unnecessary convictions.
Con fails to address the statistics of Portugal or the information about Dr. Craig mentioned by Pro. This means arguments and sources go to Pro. Con had good sources that gave information about drug-related symptoms, but not enough to corroborate the claims he made.
Con wins a point for Conduct because there are several vicious attacks by Pro when he implies Con is stupid, and when he states Con is incapable of comprehending the subject matter.
Both had good spelling and grammar.
Strong opening from pro, focusing on lack of drug education and government policies opening it to abuse by criminals (such as making drug cocktails, and selling them as if they were the real McCoy).
Con brings up addiction and damage to families. Goes into damage of heroine. And pretty well seals this debate with "date-rape drugs"
Pro extends his case, and focuses on how less deaths would occur...
Pro has a well reasoned case, but without evidence it falls flat. Are date rape drugs legal in Portugal? If it's just a lot more drugs, BoP isn't met for all drugs.
Whereas con has an expertly argued case, with a ton of support from .gov websites (such as showing the harms of heroine). A weird note is pro knows about things like Mitragynine, and argues how much safer and better it is than heroine, but his case is trying to legalize heroine as well which he just argued is worse...
Due to risks of me being unfair due to lack of knowledge on the topic (and really not wanting to argue it more), I am withdrawing argument allotments; sources however remain as there can be no question to con wholly dominating in that regard (in future, sources can be listed by just putting the URL below the relevant paragraph; there's of course better ways to list them, but the URL is enough to give credit and avoid plagiarism).
I know this is like a year old but I just read the HOF thing you wrote. I’d like to address something there. You said this “ He even brought up date-rape drugs, to which pro had zero defense for their legalization.”
I’m not asking you to change it, just thought it a good chance to educate. I didn’t address that and I’m not sure why, I think I meant to and got caught in something else.
There is no such thing as ‘date rape drugs’ it’s not an actual classification of drugs. If we are referring to drugs people give to others with the intention of raping them after they’ve become intoxicated, alcohol is far and away the most widely used ‘date rape drug’ in history. No one is calling for its prohibition. ‘Date rape drug’ is a rhetorical term that doesn’t actually mean anything. So, it’s not that I don’t have an argument for legalizing them, it’s that they literally don’t actually exist. You can give a person pretty many different drug and they’ll have their inhibitions loosened which can lead to unfortunate things. Yet there is no class of drugs with that title.
That entire premise is false and misleading and doesn’t hold up to any type of scrutiny. Keep that in mind.
I nominate you
Of course you're both welcome to nominate anyone you'd like for that task.
This debate is going into the HoF, would anyone care to provide a write-up on it?
Rational madman, we can debate this topic again, you can go first and try to take a different, more knowledgeable approach.
Omg. That’s savage as hell.
"Thanks for letting me know."
Dont worry. In a few years you will be 5 again. Unless you debate Mps1213 again, of course.
You still did a pretty good job.
Thanks for letting me know.
RM
You are no longer number 5 on leaderboard. Looks like osamagi remains number 1 for a long time.
Any time, just invite me to a debate
I’m open to debate drugs.
I will discuss drugs at any time with anyone.
Much as I do think we disagree on this in part, it sounds we would be arguing over a rather small distinction between contributing and substantially contributing, and much as I think that would be fun, I don't think I'd want it to be the subject of a whole debate, since just drawing a line between our positions would be tricky. Maybe at some point we can come back to the drug debate if you're interested, though for now I don't have the time to do so.
Humans certainly contribute to clime change and the warming period we are experiencing now. However I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to claim we are the primary or even a large part of it. There is far too much uncertainty in the data to make the claim and be serious about it. The IPCC reports themselves have addressed this and said humans are contributing but they can’t even agree on how much. Most of the evidence I would bring forward would come from IPCC reports, and the things I’ve learned obtaining my geoscience with a focus in data anlytics bachelors degree.
Setting aside the fact that comparisons to pre-1969 wouldn't do you many favors, I'd contend that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was a big step in a long line of small steps starting in the early 1900's. Before that, drugs were legal and so were many of the adulterations, so while you're technically correct, the point is moot: it doesn't make for an adequate before-and-after picture.
As for a climate change debate, I guess that would depend on how you define the debate. If the argument you're making is that there could be several factors including humans that are likely contributing to climate change, then I don't think we have much of a debate. If the argument is that there isn't sufficient proof that humans substantially contribute to climate change, then we have a disagreement.
All of that is very true, but you’re wrong. There was a time all drugs were legal in the US up until 1969 there’s was no control on substances being sold and possessed.
Climate change is real but it’s impossible to say humans are the driving factor of it given the uncertainty in the data.
Even studies of animals on drugs (while interesting) are done in laboratory conditions, not the wild.
The trouble is that we're talking about an individual country here, which is the US. Full legalization of all drugs in the US has never happened. You can say point to some other country and discuss how things are going there, but there are always alternative explanations for why something is happening within that country, we can talk a lot about the political fallout of complete legalization, which is unique to the US, as are the many programs that would or would not result from legalization, and there are different ways to accomplish the same aims (say, decriminalizing and including a widescale clean needle program to reduce HIV transmission).
The pharmacology, despite being very interesting, is only a small part of the larger picture. If you wanted to debate me on this, you would spend a lot of time talking about implementation and policy direction because we'd largely be agreed on the pharmacokinetics.
I assume we agree that climate change is real, so I don't think that's likely to yield fruit for us.
I disagree that most of it is hypothetical, there’s a huge collection of data on how drugs affect societies throughout history and it isn’t hard to apply them to ours.
Also pharmacology leaves little to hypotheticals.
I would be down to debate you on another topic, but I only have two areas I’d be willing to truly debate in a matter like this. It’s pharmacology and drugs as a whole, and climate change.
Much as I think I have a case against it, I think I'll have to decline for now. It's the type of topic where a lot of what we're arguing is theoretical, which makes it hard to weigh points adequately. Perhaps we could do a different topic at some point.
Thank you very much for the vote. I could go into everything you brought up, I just didn’t feel like the debate was going in that direction and I needed to address his points so they didn’t go unnoticed.
I’d be willing to have this debate with you if you’re willing. Thanks again.
Drugs can dramatically impact the way those animals behave in their natural habitats. Take the MDMA and octopi studies for example.
LD50 research is how much does it take to kill this lab mouse. I'm talking about the social behaviors, etc., of wild animals in their natural habitats. Not really seeing the similarity :/
Oh no.
Animal behavior has a whole lot of crossover into pharmacology, especially considering we use animals to determine LD50s and use patterns all the time.
I'm a biology major with an interest in animal behavior, so chemistry/medicine isn't really in my field of interest, just adjacent to what I''m currently studying. Thanks for the offer though!
Hey man, thanks for casting a vote. If you ever care to learn more and pharmacology please PM me. I will talk to anyone any time about it and try my best to answer any questions you have.
Well let’s keep it that way lol wasn’t tryna annoy you just tired of this insecure child
I voted based on who had the better arguments, not who I personally agree with.
Me annoying RM also has nothing to do with this topic lol. But at the same time I’m not tryna annoy anyone but him lol my bad mate.
Eh vote how you please. However I was done until he called me an abusive prick lol. I’ll stop writing comments.
You're making me think legalizing drugs may not be such a good option after-all.
This is STILL going on??
I told the truth, you know nothing about drugs, at all. That’s the most disrespectful thing I said to you before you started reporting votes and whining to mods and trying to get me banned. Before that I was perfectly nice and even brushed off the fact you ignored my friendly messages. After that I decided you needed to get made fun of. Again you’re not a victim, you started this ego battle and pettiness battle so I kept it going. Stop acting like a victim man, if you wouldn’t have done what you did I would have never said anything to you outside of pointing out your under education on this topic. There’s nothing necessarily rude about that. It’s just a fact.
You started the meanness and I didn’t back down from it and now your crying that I’m being a prick when you literally began this entire war in the comments by being a child.
I never blocked you, I never ignored you, I never reported voted that went for you, I never removed you from my friends list. All I did was poke a little fun at you, and got under your skin way too easily. You’re not a victim to anyone or anything in this entire situation, stop trying to act like you’re being tough and honorable by standing up for yourself when you literally started all of this.
I’m not abusing you lol, calm down man. I’m the one who kindly reached out, sent you friend requests, etc. I didn’t start messing with you until you reported a vote that went against you TWICE. After that I realized you needed to be pestered and humbled a little bit. You’re not being abused, you’re not as smart and witty as you think you are. I tried to help educate you kindly on this topic, you chose to ignore me and be a sore loser the second things started going against you even slightly. That is sad man.
You’re not being abused.
So I should be too scared to passively and calmly stick up for myself?
That is a vile way of seeing things and victim-blaming at its worst.
I am not the one to bully into silence. I choose not to reply to most of his vitriol and baiting, I calmly handle an english issue saying to each their own and justifying my way of wording.
That is not escalating, it is not cowering to an abusive prick. Thanks.
Ngl, I would hardly call your last comment "deescalating."
not really, it's just an immature brat throwing a tantrum. He is angrier because I have deescelated and am refusing to drop to his banal level.
This is going to escalate...
There is no lack of clear intention as the first word of the sentence is what the sentence is about. Another correct way to say it that actually makes sense is “what you did to barney, could be considered whining by many people.”
What you said would’ve gotten scratched out with a red marker by any English or grammar teacher above a 3rd grade level lmao.
Other than considering a square a triangle, everyone could consider what you did to be almost anything within reason. My way of wording it made clear that the considering of it being whining was the focus.
Your statement has lack of precision in terms of what the focus of the statement is. That is okay, we do not all talk the same way.
Your version requires a comma or the words 'to be' after 'did' and before 'whining' to even begin to not be grammatically incorrect.
But you do you, thanks for the 2 cents.
We do not all follow the cookie-cutter way of talking.
Also RM, your last comment to me made 0 sense. I think what you were looking for was “many people could consider what you did whining”
Not: “whining could be what many consider what you did to Barney…”
That’s a weird way of saying that, just wanted to point that out for ya.
Wait, is that REALLY you??
I spell it out just in case you don’t get it. Essentially I’m not calling for anyone to get banned, votes to be removed, ignoring friendly and helpful messages, removing from friends lists, blocking, etc.
All I’ve done is tell someone in the comments why they’re wrong about something, express my disappointment in a vote being removed (which I’m no longer complaining about), and badger you a little bit because you keep falling for it. Hopefully you can nail down the difference there lmao.
Nah there’s a fine line between telling someone why they’re wrong, educating, talking shit, and reporting votes and begging moderators to ban me lol, I you can’t see the difference there you’re truly lost forever.
whining could be what many consider what you did to barney to begin with and what you're continuing to do to me in this and another debate's comments sections.
It makes me sad for you that you’re so bad at handling a vote that goes against you. I have no cares if I win or lose. I didn’t do this to win, I did this to try and sharpen my ideas while trying to share my deep knowledge on this topic. Neither of those things happened because I had a debate with someone who refused to even engage with 99% of my points and also brought nothing I haven’t heard 1,000,000 times to the table. What a shame.