Head-2-Head: The Legalization of Drugs

Participants
Pro - Mr Mxyztplk
Con - Maverickhunter

Terms

The terms for this debate are as follows:

1. Participants will take turns, and each will post an opening statement, two rebuttals and a closing statement.

2. There are no time limits on this debate.

3. There are no character restrictions for any post.

4. Each participant may post no more than one image to the debate thread.

5. This will be judged by an anonymous staff member.

6. However, comments from any Fighter will be welcome in this thread after an H2H moderator has made a post declaring the debate finished.

7. These rules may be modified by mutual agreement prior to beginning the debate. The changes will be made to this post by an H2H moderator.

8. Maverickhunter will post first, at which time the debate will begin.

General Rules

NOTE: These would normally not be listed here, but since they're under construction and subject to change, I've included them here to reduce confusion. -- Majic

The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:

1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

Participation

These are the proposed terms for this debate. Participants should ensure that they understand and agree to them prior to posting to this thread.

Once a post has been made, the terms are binding.

Good luck to the participants. Were looking for a hard fought battle here.

I am against the legalization of drugs for many reasons. First of all, are drugs something that you want your children to have? Giving drugs to children may cause them to have disorders at an early age because their body may not tolerate it.

If that happens, I want to know what you think would happen if drugs fell into the hands of little Children! They obviously aren't legalized for a reason, and the reason that they are not legalized is so that people do not use them.

What I am saying is that kids are going to more likely have access to drugs and it will be beyond parents control to change that.

Also, it would go against another law, which is that you cannot drive when you have a controlled substance in your system. It would go against common sense to do drugs, then to drive after it. If that were to happen, the police would be making a game about seeing how many people they can arrest them for that.

Plus, the war on drugs is winning, isn't that good reason enough to stop drugs from being legalized?

Additionally, the police would then be allowed to use illegal drugs to get information out of people illegally. That would make them able to manipulate your body by giving you some stimulant that they could change how you feel at the time.

Also, alcohol makes you feel more drowsier, doesn't it? I haven't had any myself but it would be proven a fact that if alcohol was legalized to minors more and more people would be buying it. It's common sense, and then, they would drive again, and they'd get points put on their driving license saying they did drugs. Plus the rule about you not being allowed to have controlled substances can put you in jail if they catch you with it while you are driving for more up to 15 years!

The FDA would legalize all drugs if it felt like legalizing all drugs.

If the FDA were to legalize all of them they'd have to test all of them on other people and even though they may be harmful they have to list down what effects they have, and how effective they were in achieving those.

There is a reason why the FDA doesn't do that and that's because they only have a certain amount of time to review a certain amount of drugs. If they legalized all drugs they would legalize drugs that aren't as high quality and are of lower standards than their standards. That's why the FDA regulates drugs!

Plus, if there is one way to get a feeling, there is an alternative to that, and they can alternatively do plenty other of activities to get the same feeling.



[edit on 6-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

May I start out with wishing my opponent, Maverickhunter good luck.

In the course of this debate I intend to show that drug prohibition laws have had a seriously negative impact upon society, and are in fact:

Helping the criminal element that it purports to fight:
Criminal organizations make the majority of their money from the sale of illicit narcotics with huge profit margins.

Processed coc aine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail). Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail).
www.pbs.org...

Putting needless stress on the health care system:
By the sale of bad product, accidental overdose and lethal drug interaction,
We have all watched the Woodstock footage “DON”T EAT THE BROWN ACID”
The reason they didn’t want you to eat the brown acid, was because it was tainted. If drugs were legalized and regulated this would not be a problem companies producing the drugs would have a higher quality control level compared to some guy in his basement.

Hindering and tying up precious police forces:
The police spend an inordinate amount of time, money and man power fighting the war on drugs, when these recourses could be spent on more immediate concerns as in, finding missing persons, catching thefts or solving murders.

Misuse of military forces:
In this time of the war on terror, the US Coast Guard and USN has ships patrolling the gulf of Mexico on drug interdiction mission as apposed to guarding our ports or other missions of more importance.

A burden on the tax payer
The DEA, police raids, court cost and confinement of drug violators are all vary expensive. We could eliminate these costs over night by simply eliminating the laws that create them. Furthermore with legalization and taxation it would be a boon to the treasury. That would the be able to go into funding for police, health care and people with addictions.

So you're saying that they have mismanaged the quality of these drugs and the authorities are looking to track drugs down for their own personal use. Well I see where you are coming from and I still have to remain on the course I choose for my debate.

These drugs should be regulated, if they want the effect that they get from these drugs, then some company should create a medicine that would do the same thing and prevent you from being addicted. They should really stop some guy from making drugs in his basement but if you are calling for all drugs to be legalized all of these Drug dealers and drug users will be running free and they will not be stopped. You will not be able to call the cops on them, you will not be able to call the authority on them, all you will be able to do is that all you can do is wait for an authority to recognize that they are using a controlled substance, so then they would catch them.

What you're saying is similar to what I was going to say. I know that the government goes after these drugs. However that's because they

1. Want to seize the drugs and get rid of them (as to what they say)
2. They want to sell them, of course.

I know that they do things wrong but what they should do is that they should

a) manage their money correctly
b) stop these secret psi-ops that don't make sense
c) stop drug trafficking

The drug trafficking that is going on within the government is only increasing the burden we have in the war on drugs.

I would like to say that they can come up with one drug that is LEGAL that does the same thing as the other ones, but I highly doubt that.

You said that a company making a drug would be better than someone doing it in their basement, but, if a company did it, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of what they want?

Plus also, they want drugs to not be regulated by the government, am I right?

What I am saying is that having them being created by a Company would bring even more regulation, and plus, they would still have to go through the FDA, and you haven't said whether you wanted that agency to exist or not yet! So there is a very low percent chance of the FDA recognizing that the drug could be marketed, and it would disallow any of those drugs from those companies because it would realize most likely, that these drugs do something similar that is compared to another drug on the market, or the black market.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
What I am saying is that kids are going to more likely have access to drugs and it will be beyond parents control to change that.

I am for the legalization of drugs still regulated, but perfectly legal for adults to purchase, as for kids being able to obtain currently illicit narcotics the fact that they are illegal does not seem to stop them. To prove this just take a walk to your 7/11 and ask any of them if they know were to “grab”

which is that you cannot drive when you have a controlled substance in your system.

With a field sobriety test and or blood test the police could determine whether or not your fit to drive.

Plus, the war on drugs is winning, isn't that good reason enough to stop drugs from being legalized?

No not really, it’s a stalemate at best

Marijuana
Strategic Findings
• High potency marijuana production, smuggling, and distribution by Canada-based Asian DTOs, primarily of Vietnamese ethnicity, is increasing.
• Higher potency marijuana is now being produced from cannabis cultivated in large outdoor grow sites in California by Mexican and Asian criminal groups.
• Large-scale cannabis cultivation by Mexican criminal groups is expanding beyond California to more areas in the Pacific Northwest and, to a much more limited extent, eastern states.

www.usdoj.gov...

Heroin
Strategic Findings
• The availability of Mexican heroin is increasing, albeit slightly, in eastern heroin markets traditionally supplied by South American heroin.
• Mexican DTOs increasingly are transporting and distributing South American heroin in eastern U.S. drug markets, on behalf of Colombian DTOs.
• Continued declines in heroin production in South America could result in increased availability of Mexican and Asian heroin in eastern U.S. heroin markets.
• Although overall heroin demand appears to be stable, increased levels of abuse among young adults have been noted in some areas
www.usdoj.gov...

Other Dangerous Drugs
Strategic Findings
• Since 2004 Canada-based Asian criminal groups (primarily ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese) have been expanding MDMA distribution and have significantly elevated MDMA availability.
• The arrests of several major PCP producers in Southern California (the primary location for domestic PCP production) has caused a decrease in the availability of PCP in the region and will most likely affect availability in the rest of the United States.
• '___' abuse still remains low after a major DEA operation conducted in 2001 dismantled a major '___' producing and trafficking organization
www.usdoj.gov...

At a cost of almost $13 billion for 2007 those results are not worth the price.

www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...

Additionally, the police would then be allowed to use illegal drugs to get information out of people illegally. That would make them able to manipulate your body by giving you some stimulant that they could change how you feel at the time.

No that would remain illegal, see article V of the bill of rights

if alcohol was legalized to minors more and more people would be buying it

Sorry I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean total lack of regulations. The idea of a kid able to legally obtain heroin is not cool.

The FDA would legalize all drugs if it felt like legalizing all drugs.

So we should live our lives only by what the FDA feels like?
I see no reason to disallow recreational drugs, solely based on their feelings, if I wish to do a recreational drug that would be by choice. How someone I’ve never met before feels about it does not come into play.
If I as an adult choose to do a recreational drug for non medicinal purposes the FDA’s morals on getting high should not come into play, only their job of ensuring my safety. What they should be looking at is does this substance do what it is supposed to do, e.g. does smoking this joint lead to a high. Or will this coc aine cause severe harm?

If the FDA were to legalize all of them they'd have to test all of them on other people and even though they may be harmful they have to list down what effects they have, and how effective they were in achieving those.

That already happens, the experiment has been on going, and expanding as we find more ways to get high. Every time someone OD’s hospital staff have a list of question to ask them, and a whole battery of tests to perform.

For the rest of the thread, even though I feel like doing it, I don't feel like the two of us quoting external sources for the rest of the thread. Also, but just because I don't like what you're doing, doesn't mean that I am giving up, as I haven't yet.

The fifth amendment says nothing about the police interrogating someone for drugs, in the strict interpretation of the word. And don't you mean the 5th amendment, and not article five? Article five of the constitution talks about the convening and the meeting of Congress every year.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The fifth amendment refers to testifying in front of the grand jury. The fifth amendment does not rule out the idea of the police interrogating suspects.

So, are you saying because there are higher amounts of drugs increased and being trafficked that we should give up on the war on drugs and let them pay for taxes? We are a tax law abiding country. Even if we were to have drugs legalized to pay for our taxes instead of our taxes, the IRS would still audit our homes, and would find other ways to audit us.

If you meant, that there shouldn't be a lack of regulations, then why did you say that all drugs should be legalized? That's kind of my point here.

How could hospitals asking someone questions and making them do tests to perform be the same as testing illegal drugs on patient and how does it have to do with making people high?



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
The fifth amendment says nothing about the police interrogating someone for drugs, in the strict interpretation of the word.

That is not what I was rebutting. The statement you had made was.

Additionally, the police would then be allowed to use illegal drugs to get information out of people illegally.

This indicated to me that you thought that it would mean that the police could use drugs to interrogate people. No matter the substance legal or not, the police are not allowed to do that.

The fifth amendment does not rule out the idea of the police interrogating suspects.

Police can not compel someone to testify against them selves. Confessing is a form of testifying.

So, are you saying because there are higher amounts of drugs increased and being trafficked that we should give up on the war on drugs and let them pay for taxes

No I’m saying that drugs should be sold and taxed. The taxes accrued would add to taxes to those already gathered, not replace them.

If you meant, that there shouldn't be a lack of regulations, then why did you say that all drugs should be legalized?

Legalization and regulation are two different things.
Driving is legal but it is regulated, you have to have a license, obey the speed limit and drive on the right side of the road.

How could hospitals asking someone questions and making them do tests to perform be the same as testing illegal drugs on patient and how does it have to do with making people high?

Over the years many people under the influence of a narcotic have visited the hospital for one reason or another. Well there doctors have been able to gather information from these people on the affects of everything from marijuana to heroin. Every day in emergency rooms across the nation doctor’s deal with people on drugs, I think that real world experience carries a lot of weight.

One of the rules that I bolded in the initial post was bolded for a reason. It is the most important one.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

I see that two of Maverickhunter's posts have been edited, so the obvious actions must be taken.

I declare Mr Mxyztplk the winner as Maverickhunter forfeits the debate for editing two of his posts. If you guys wish to do a rematch in the future, I'm going to ask that you both do some preparation and look into the standards that are expected for the Head-2-Head debates.

Thread Closed