Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?

[Skrah]

I put this as blunt and as quick as I possibly can.

One of my best friends that I grew up with died of a Heroin OD and my brother was a Heroin user as well. It simply does not matter if it is made legal, or not. The fact of the matter is is that it is unhealthy for your body, it changes the way you think and act, and it tears families apart.

I'm currently 21 years old and my brother is now 26 years old and is living at home. He was living in San Antonio, Texas with his girlfriend and they were pretty close to tieing the knot I think. I knew for a while that my brother smoked pot and was into that but I never suspected him to ever make that leap to injecting himself with needles. To this day the thought that he did that makes me cringe. He used to call the rest of my family and I up each and every month to ask us for money so that him and Hollie (his ex GF) could pay for the visits to the vet that they made with their dog. In reality though, he was using our money and lied to his own brother so he could shoot up.

To wrap this up her parents found the needles and my brother was stripped of everything. He left San Antonio with a single suitcase and was forced by his ex GF's family to leave immediately and to never show his face again. They blamed my brother for influencing her into doing it....but in fact, she was a recovering addict already so that's pretty much a crock of BS.

But back to the topic at hand: It doesn't matter if it is legalized or not because either way, it will negatively affect our society. We might as well start handing out semi-automatics to random people too because all people should be allowed to protect themselves, right?

I'm so sorry to hear that. But in reality, illegalizing drugs CAN help, if we enforce it. Imagine if every drug store sold drugs. It would be infinitely easier for people to get those drugs. By illegalizing it we at least discourage the use of it. The reality is that the drug market is very powerful, especially here in Mexico or in other Latin countries. Drug dealers can basically do whatever they want. Heck, they even assaulted the police's main base with grenades, but that's another topic entirely lol.

 

[w!zard]

We don't need to unban illegal drugs. We already have too much ways to kill ourselves and each other.

i already explained why this argument doesn't work

 

[KrazyGlue]

when you talk about the harm of drugs, you have to be reasonable. not every potential harm should be considered, or nothing would be legal.

The problem with this argument (as well as the sleeping pills example) is that drugs, with the possible exception of marijuana, have no practical use. Many of them are used exclusively to cause harm to the user and often those around them.

second hand smoke shouldn't be a problem since there are regulations for that.

What regulations? If there's regulations, then how have so many people died from second hand smoke?

drugs that do not significantly negatively affect judgment should be allowed too. going by this criteria, at least tobacco, weed, alcohol, and xtc should be legal.

All of those definitely effects negative judgment. But we can't ban alcohol and tobacco due to the large amount of people that use them.

also if you think alcohol should be legal, then anything less dangerous that that should be too.

I already said why I think alcohol should be legal and less harmful drugs shouldn't be. Alcohol can't be successfully banned; the prohibition amendment should be a clear example why. The other drugs should be banned because they are a danger to society and have no practical use (again, possibly barring marijuana).

I'm so sorry to hear that. But in reality, illegalizing drugs CAN help, if we enforce it. Imagine if every drug store sold drugs. It would be infinitely easier for people to get those drugs. By illegalizing it we at least discourage the use of it. The reality is that the drug market is very powerful, especially here in Mexico or in other Latin countries. Drug dealers can basically do whatever they want. Heck, they even assaulted the police's main base with grenades, but that's another topic entirely lol.

There was no reason provided to legalize them, other than "why not?".

 

[Faithkeeper]

I believe the judgment lays with the dangers to people other than the user inherent in the drug.

While things may be dangerous and have negative affects, I do not believe it is the government's job to "be mommy". if you want to damage your body, you should have every right to. But, if you getting high or having a severe addiction would negatively influence your judgment and cause you to infringe another individual's rights, then, it should be illegal.

I cite the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts an annual National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) that asks individuals living in households about their drug and alcohol use and their involvement in crimes (see table 1). Provisional data for 1997 show that respondents arrested in the past year for possession or sale of drugs and driving under the influence had the highest percentage of illicit drug use in the past year. Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge."

While the statical aspect of this data may be invalid due to its age, it establishes a link between illicit drug use and crime. (infringing another individual's rights in these given scenario) Therefore, since the damages of the drug are not restricted to the user, but to innocent individuals, the legal use of this drug is out of the question.

Whether or not something could be effectively enforced I believe is irrelevant. This is a should/would argument. The purpose of the debate (unless specifically stated) is not whether something would be implemented but that it should be implemented. The should/would argument distracts from the topic of the debate: "Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?"

Now if the current system is not effective, an important part of debate is to have a plan to fix the harm, and if that plan is not effective, it does little to fixing that harm. But saying that the current plan of action does not fix the harm , (which is a valid point in a formal, one on one or two on two debate, don't misunderstand me) should not be stated without a alternative solution, unless the individual claims there is no harm, because this debate is not defined on whether drug enforcement is effective enough to warrant change, but should illegal drugs remain illegal.

As far as drugs that are already legal: that's another topic in my opinion, but many things I've said I believe could apply to that discussion as well.

 

[|RK|]

i already explained why this argument doesn't work

Certainly not effectively, considering my argument is based on the status quo rather than any changes.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I believe the judgment lays with the dangers to people other than the user inherent in the drug.

While things may be dangerous and have negative affects, I do not believe it is the government's job to "be mommy". if you want to damage your body, you should have every right to. But, if you getting high or having a severe addiction would negatively influence your judgment and cause you to infringe another individual's rights, then, it should be illegal.

Yes, and they're illegal due to the large potential for them to negatively influence your judgment.

I cite the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conducts an annual National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) that asks individuals living in households about their drug and alcohol use and their involvement in crimes (see table 1). Provisional data for 1997 show that respondents arrested in the past year for possession or sale of drugs and driving under the influence had the highest percentage of illicit drug use in the past year. Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge."

While the statical aspect of this data may be invalid due to its age, it establishes a link between illicit drug use and crime. (infringing another individual's rights in these given scenario) Therefore, since the damages of the drug are not restricted to the user, but to innocent individuals, the legal use of this drug is out of the question.

Interesting quote, and a valid point. I agree.

Whether or not something could be effectively enforced I believe is irrelevant. This is a should/would argument. The purpose of the debate (unless specifically stated) is not whether something would be implemented but that it should be implemented. The should/would argument distracts from the topic of the debate: "Illegal Drugs. Should they be illegal ?"

It really depends on how you determine "should". I interpreted it as: "should they be illegal in today's society" in which case, my point about alcohol and tobacco stands. They can't really be banned. If you interpret it as "should they be illegal in an ideal situation" I would say that all of those drugs should be illegal.

 

[w!zard]

The problem with this argument (as well as the sleeping pills example) is that drugs, with the possible exception of marijuana, have no practical use. Many of them are used exclusively to cause harm to the user and often those around them.

the practical use is for the user's enjoyment. marijuana does have legal uses though

What regulations? If there's regulations, then how have so many people died from second hand smoke?

because those regulations weren't as strict in the past

All of those definitely effects negative judgment. But we can't ban alcohol and tobacco due to the large amount of people that use them.

marijuana, xtc, and tobacco do not induce violence. the first two actually decrease hostility. alcohol minorly affects judgment. you wouldn't do things you are against while drunk, though it's more debatable than the other three

I already said why I think alcohol should be legal and less harmful drugs shouldn't be. Alcohol can't be successfully banned; the prohibition amendment should be a clear example why. The other drugs should be banned because they are a danger to society and have no practical use (again, possibly barring marijuana).

they're a danger to the user, not society

There was no reason provided to legalize them, other than "why not?".

as i already stated, everything should be allowed until a good reason comes up to ban it.

Certainly not effectively, considering my argument is based on the status quo rather than any changes.

the status quo is independent of the argument. for debates on restrictions, you assume the substance/action is legal and then try to give reasons to make it illegal.

 

[|RK|]

Incorrect. The subject is whether or not illegal drugs should be legal. As the status quo has them illegal, arguing in favor of the status quo is not independent, else current studies and information as well as their harmful effects which came forth as a result of illegality, especially in the case of gang monopolies would be completely irrelevant.

 

[w!zard]

i've repeated this many times already: everything should be legal until it is shown to be sufficiently dangerous to ban. appeal to the status quo is a logical fallacy. argument for and against something is independent of the status quo

 

[KrazyGlue]

the practical use is for the user's enjoyment.

That's not a practical use. Plus, is someone uses sleeping pills to kill somebody else, they are most likely insane, whereas with drugs perfectly reasonable people can end up committing horrible crimes.

The main difference is that sleeping pills don't cause the crime; a buildup of hatred causes it. Unfortunately, with drugs-related crimes/damage, the drugs are almost always the main reason. Whether it is intoxication, a need to get more of a drug, second hand smoke, etc. the drug is always the main reason.

because those regulations weren't as strict in the past

If they exist (which I highly doubt they do), then they still aren't strict enough, because you can see tons of people inhaling second hand smoke in any major city. I have serious doubts that the regulation you keep mentioning exists. Unless you can find it online and post it here, there's no reason to believe it exists.

marijuana, xtc, and tobacco do not induce violence. the first two actually decrease hostility.

Oh, really? Ever heard of someone committing armed robbery in order to get more of the drug they're hooked on?

alcohol minorly affects judgment. you wouldn't do things you are against while drunk, though it's more debatable than the other three

Again, there's no way to successfully ban alcohol. So I don't even know why you're making this point.

they're a danger to the user, not society

What about second hand smoke? What about DUI? I haven't seen you make any logical case that they aren't dangerous. Claims like these aren't backed up and therefore carry no weight here.

as i already stated, everything should be allowed until a good reason comes up to ban it.

Are you reading anything I'm saying?

First of all, I've given my reasons why they should be banned. They're a danger to society because of the secondary/indirect effects, such as second-hand smoke, intoxication issues (i.e. DUI), and robbery to get more of the drug. You could at least address what I'm saying and say why you think these reasons aren't good enough.

And second of all, this was addressed to Prince Of Fire, responding to his post about why he thinks whether or not we ban drugs won't effect anything.

________________________

w!zard, you're making arguments without backing up what you're saying.

 

[w!zard]

That's not a practical use. Plus, is someone uses sleeping pills to kill somebody else, they are most likely insane, whereas with drugs perfectly reasonable people can end up committing horrible crimes.

The main difference is that sleeping pills don't cause the crime; a buildup of hatred causes it. Unfortunately, with drugs-related crimes/damage, the drugs are almost always the main reason. Whether it is intoxication, a need to get more of a drug, second hand smoke, etc. the drug is always the main reason.

then what IS "practical use"?

so if someone uses sleeping pills to take advantage of someone else, he's a crazy loony. but if he uses an illegal drug to do it, it's the drug's fault for being dangerous?

If they exist (which I highly doubt they do), then they still aren't strict enough, because you can see tons of people inhaling second hand smoke in any major city. I have serious doubts that the regulation you keep mentioning exists. Unless you can find it online and post it here, there's no reason to believe it exists.

why don't you look around. there are "no smoking" signs everywhere. not to mention the small amount of second hand smoke from walking past a guy smoking outside is harmless

Oh, really? Ever heard of someone committing armed robbery in order to get more of the drug they're hooked on?

this doesn't address my point

What about second hand smoke? What about DUI? I haven't seen you make any logical case that they aren't dangerous. Claims like these aren't backed up and therefore carry no weight here.

you can't back up a non-claim. all i can do is try to disprove your claims. i already addressed second hand smoke, and you can DUI with legal drugs too, so it cannot be a reason to ban drugs.

First of all, I've given my reasons why they should be banned. They're a danger to society because of the secondary/indirect effects, such as second-hand smoke, intoxication issues (i.e. DUI), and robbery to get more of the drug. You could at least address what I'm saying and say why you think these reasons aren't good enough.

your reasons aren't good enough because they are an exaggeration created from growing up in an "illegal drugs are rly bad" environment. you have very little knowledge of how the drugs actually affect the user, and you group all illegal drugs into the same category of being addictive and dangerous (when weed and xtc aren't even physically addictive). debating with you is kind of like watching an "above the influence" commercial where weed is described as a terrible and harmful drug when it is actually one of the most harmless ones.

question your assumptions

 

[KrazyGlue]

so if someone uses sleeping pills to take advantage of someone else, he's a crazy loony. but if he uses an illegal drug to do it, it's the drug's fault for being dangerous?

Yes because the drug effects their judgment.

why don't you look around. there are "no smoking" signs everywhere.

No, that's only in some public places. Many public places and outdoor areas don't require those regulations.

not to mention the small amount of second hand smoke from walking past a guy smoking outside is harmless

Wrong. It builds up over time.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 for second hand smoke facts. The first one is the one that pertains to this specific point.

this doesn't address my point

Yes, it does. You said ecstasy, marijuana, and tobacco don't induce violence. People often rob stores to get more of what they're hooked on, and it often ends violently.

A story about a tobacco robbery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/3569187.stm

This would happen with the illegal drugs if they were legal.

you can't back up a non-claim.

You essentially claimed that illegal drugs are not a threat to society.

all i can do is try to disprove your claims.

But you're just making statement that you believe to be true with no reinforcement. You're not disproving anything; instead you're essentially just stating your opinion.

i already addressed second hand smoke, and you can DUI with legal drugs too, so it cannot be a reason to ban drugs.

For second hand smoke: see above (the second quote)

For DUI: Once again, I have to repeat that alcohol and tobacco should be banned in an ideal situation. You're simply repeating the consistency argument. We're trying to prevent as much damage as possible here, and consistency should be less important than saving people's lives.

Why force more DUI when it's not necessary? The DUI that already exists from alcohol and tobacco can't be prevented, but there's no point in forcing more by legalizing these drugs.

your reasons aren't good enough because they are an exaggeration created from growing up in an "illegal drugs are rly bad" environment. you have very little knowledge of how the drugs actually affect the user

You don't know anything about me, so I don't know why you are making personal attacks towards how I was raised and my knowledge on drugs. This is an insult and shouldn't be used here.

you group all illegal drugs into the same category of being addictive and dangerous (when weed and xtc aren't even physically addictive). debating with you is kind of like watching an "above the influence" commercial where weed is described as a terrible and harmful drug when it is actually one of the most harmless ones.

I'm not grouping all drugs together; this is a debate about whether all drugs should be legalized, therefore it is appropriate to discuss the worse ones. If you want to discuss marijuana specifically, go to the marijuana thread.

question your assumptions

What's that supposed to mean? You're the one making assumptions about how I was raised and my knowledge of drugs.

 

[w!zard]

Yes because the drug effects their judgment.

again, not all drugs do this

No, that's only in some public places. Many public places and outdoor areas don't require those regulations.

"Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars."
-the link you gave me

Wrong. It builds up over time.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 for second hand smoke facts. The first one is the one that pertains to this specific point.

many of these facts lack enough information to give a thoughtful person reason to go against smoking. for example, the first bullet fails to tell exactly how harmful any specific amount of second-hand smoke is. it's a lot of propaganda

Yes, it does. You said ecstasy, marijuana, and tobacco don't induce violence. People often rob stores to get more of what they're hooked on, and it often ends violently.

A story about a tobacco robbery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/3569187.stm

This would happen with the illegal drugs if they were legal.

you expect me to accept your reason because you found a situation of tobacco robbery? things like this happens all the time! you could say jewelery should be banned because it does not have a "practical" use and provokes robbery. you are not being reasonable when considering the harm of some drugs, rather you're just trying to find anything potentially bad with it and throwing it out here in hope that it'll convince someone.

You essentially claimed that illegal drugs are not a threat to society.

there you go again, grouping all illegal drugs into one category as if i support the legalization of ALL legal drugs.

For DUI: Once again, I have to repeat that alcohol and tobacco should be banned in an ideal situation. You're simply repeating the consistency argument. We're trying to prevent as much damage as possible here, and consistency should be less important than saving people's lives.

Why force more DUI when it's not necessary? The DUI that already exists from alcohol and tobacco can't be prevented, but there's no point in forcing more by legalizing these drugs.

harmful drugs are not the only ones you can DUI with

You don't know anything about me, so I don't know why you are making personal attacks towards how I was raised and my knowledge on drugs. This is an insult and shouldn't be used here.

it's not intended to be an attack on you personally, but you make too many assumptions that need to be let go if you want to be able to seriously debate with someone about this.

I'm not grouping all drugs together; this is a debate about whether all drugs should be legalized, therefore it is appropriate to discuss the worse ones. If you want to discuss marijuana specifically, go to the marijuana thread.

no, it's not. it's about the general legalization of drugs. i'm arguing that the ones that only harm the user should be legalized. and if you're going to debate with me, it's going to be about that topic

 

[Faithkeeper]

It really depends on how you determine "should". I interpreted it as: "should they be illegal in today's society" in which case, my point about alcohol and tobacco stands. They can't really be banned. If you interpret it as "should they be illegal in an ideal situation" I would say that all of those drugs should be illegal.

I understand your point, and from your interpretation I agree almost completely. [I still maintain my interpretation though] I don't think the current system is capable of having an effective ban on things of that nature.

Spoiler

(Although I would love to be proven wrong)

I was more addressing the "spending lots of money on the drug war" point that was mentioned before I started posting , since I'm trying to adhere strictly to the what I believe is the topic...

I believe the "tobacco and secondhand smoke" [or any drug that is currently legal] debate is a tangent to the debate topic, so I will not express my views on those particular points.

 

[|RK|]

i've repeated this many times already: everything should be legal until it is shown to be sufficiently dangerous to ban. appeal to the status quo is a logical fallacy. argument for and against something is independent of the status quo

Okay, then, the illegal drugs have shown harmful potential in taking them as consistently as something such as alcohol. As alcohol is used more than the illegal drugs, as well as tobacco, the chances of normal people breaking the law to gain their addictive substances back are rather high. This was shown by the futile attempt in the past, otherwise known as temperance. This means that keeping alcohol and tobacco legal, crime levels will theoretically stabilize, rather than spike by an unsuccessful ban. This means that it's actually safer to keep illegal drugs illegal, rather than let normal people get addicted and ruin their families, their unborn children, and the lives of others. This also means that the status quo is actually safer in order to protect those who don't use drugs, such as children, from being separated from their family members and lose an opportunity to excel. These are the types of children that end up on the streets, committing crimes, joining gangs to have someone to look up to, etc. Now, let's say that the drug using family member is the breadwinner. You can see how this puts more incomplete families on the street. Once they are taken into the homeless shelters, the amount of money needed to feed, shower, and keep them clothed puts a damper on the economy on a large scale level. Status quo is the best choice right now.

 

[KrazyGlue]

"Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars."
-the link you gave me

Last time I checked 23 is less than half.

many of these facts lack enough information to give a thoughtful person reason to go against smoking. for example, the first bullet fails to tell exactly how harmful any specific amount of second-hand smoke is. it's a lot of propaganda

Apparently its harmful enough to kill people. Try telling the families of people who died from second hand smoke that it's harmless.

you expect me to accept your reason because you found a situation of tobacco robbery? things like this happens all the time!

Exactly my point. You seemed to believe those things don't happen when you said tobacco, ecstasy, and marijuana don't induce violence.

you could say jewelery should be banned because it does not have a "practical" use and provokes robbery. you are not being reasonable when considering the harm of some drugs, rather you're just trying to find anything potentially bad with it and throwing it out here in hope that it'll convince someone.

You're not listening. Someone who robs jewelry, again, clearly has something wrong with them, but drugs addiction can force normal people to rob places. Again, those robberies by people who are just like that can't be prevented. So why add to them by legalizing drugs?

again, not all drugs do this

there you go again, grouping all illegal drugs into one category as if i support the legalization of ALL legal drugs.

First of all, you never said what you supported, so how was I supposed to know?

Second of all, for legalizing marijuana and ecstasy (which seems to be the two substances you're pushing for), see the last argument.

harmful drugs are not the only ones you can DUI with

This doesn't have anything to do with my point. You will add to DUI-related deaths if you legalize any drug.

it's not intended to be an attack on you personally, but you make too many assumptions that need to be let go if you want to be able to seriously debate with someone about this.

Again, you're just making random claims without backing them up. What assumptions are you talking about? You can't just say things with nothing to base them off of "if you want to be able to seriously debate with someone about this".

When you make these random claims all it does is force me to ask what you're talking about, which stalls the debate. It's really not helping the flow of this. I'm tired of reading your posts that don't give me some sort of substance to actually debate about.

no, it's not. it's about the general legalization of drugs. i'm arguing that the ones that only harm the user should be legalized. and if you're going to debate with me, it's going to be about that topic

First of all, can you stop with the "if you're going to debate with me" stuff? You're being ambivalent and unreasonable.


Secondly, marijuana and ecstasy can definitely harm those other than the user.

For one thing, issues that already exist with alcohol and tobacco would be increased, such as drug related robberies and DUI.

Marijuana: One in six (600,000) high school students drives under the influence of marijuana, almost as many as those intoxicated from alcohol. The amount of deaths that could result from this is scary.
Source (and more info): http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_5.htm


Ecstasy:
First of all, you said it wasn't addictive. However, 43% of people that use it become addicted, so that is not necessarily a true point (http://www.nida.nih.gov/InfoFacts/ecstasy.html). In terms of it harming those other than the user, since it's a pill, it won't emit any smoke. But there are still DUI deaths every year, and due to impaired judgment, people will do things to others that they wouldn't normally do. So there's no real argument that it only harms the user. Some examples of issues with ecstasy: www.adicbc.com/publications/article4.pdf (first few pages)

 

[w!zard]

Last time I checked 23 is less than half.

no, it's actually a lot more than half

This doesn't have anything to do with my point. You will add to DUI-related deaths if you legalize any drug.

For one thing, issues that already exist with alcohol and tobacco would be increased, such as drug related robberies and DUI.

and opening more mcdonalds will increase health-related deaths! you are extrapolating. as long as the person is not harming others while under the effects of the drug, it should be considered "safe." what the person decides to do after the effects of the drug wears off is completely up to him and shouldn't be blamed on the drug.

Marijuana: One in six (600,000) high school students drives under the influence of marijuana, almost as many as those intoxicated from alcohol. The amount of deaths that could result from this is scary.
Source (and more info): http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/bldea050426_5.htm

LOL nice try. next time, get your link from an unbiased source that doesn't provide unclear statements, such as "one in six... students drive under the influence of marijuana" and expect it to be convincing

Ecstasy:
First of all, you said it wasn't addictive. However, 43% of people that use it become addicted, so that is not necessarily a true point (http://www.nida.nih.gov/InfoFacts/ecstasy.html). In terms of it harming those other than the user, since it's a pill, it won't emit any smoke. But there are still DUI deaths every year, and due to impaired judgment, people will do things to others that they wouldn't normally do. So there's no real argument that it only harms the user. Some examples of issues with ecstasy: www.adicbc.com/publications/article4.pdf (first few pages)

xtc is not PHYSICALLY addictive. it's like playing a video game. it also does not impair judgment on safety. if someone decides to drive while rolling, they're messed up to start with

 

[Rogue Pit]

Its seems to be a cause and effect happening here where both sides is sort of right.

On one side, there are drug robberies, and deaths caused by people who want to obtain illegal drugs to “stimulate” themselves. By legalizing drugs, and selling with a strict business sense you could decrease the amount of casualities caused over drugs. For example drug dealers fighting while trying to sell and addicts who do whatever they can to obtain it.

On the other side, your saying that drugs cloud people's judgement, making them make bad decisions that only endanger themselves, but endanger others as well. While in a drunk or high state you can become more aggressive or accidently throw your life away.

As some people said, Im sure the government has already debated this and decided it is for the well being of the citizens it governs to ban drugs that basically alter your personality that CAN have negative outcomes. Like it is the law to buckle your seatbelt, (scenario)although statistically you get into an accident once every two years it is still in your best interest to wear your seatbelt in the possibility that it is needed/something bad happens. As related to this, I think they should be banned to protect people to reduce casualties. To prevent the robbery of people from said addicts it is up to people to keep themselves safe and have the police as assistants.

I suppose they both both have negative and positive aspects but for the safety of the civilians it should be the choice to pick the one with the better positive:negative ratio and in my opinion banning drugs would be the right choice.

 

[KrazyGlue]

no, it's actually a lot more than half

There's 50 states. 25 is half of that. 23 is less than 25. Therefore it follows that 23 is less than 50.

and opening more mcdonalds will increase health-related deaths! you are extrapolating. as long as the person is not harming others while under the effects of the drug, it should be considered "safe." what the person decides to do after the effects of the drug wears off is completely up to him and shouldn't be blamed on the drug.

You're making the same mistake again. Eating 50 burgers at McDonalds is somebody's choice; drug use effects judgment, so it's directly causing the deaths.

LOL nice try. next time, get your link from an unbiased source that doesn't provide unclear statements, such as "one in six... students drive under the influence of marijuana" and expect it to be convincing

How is that not clear to you? What word do you not understand? What do you consider to be unbiased? Why don't you actually debate instead of making claims that every source in the world that doesn't agree with you is false? You haven't provided any sources or any facts and all you do is complain that everything is wrong without backing up your statements.

xtc is not PHYSICALLY addictive. it's like playing a video game. it also does not impair judgment on safety. if someone decides to drive while rolling, they're messed up to start with

Again, you're just making a statement about your opinion. You aren't debating at all. You're just saying things that you think are true without backing it up. You need to have some way of showing that what you're saying has some truth. What you're saying doesn't mean anything until you prove it. and you didn't even try to dispute my point that ecstasy and marijuana cause death upon people other than the user.
_______________________

You haven't provided any valid arguments against my statements, therefore they still stand.

On one side, there are drug robberies, and deaths caused by people who want to obtain illegal drugs to “stimulate” themselves. By legalizing drugs, and selling with a strict business sense you could decrease the amount of casualities caused over drugs. For example drug dealers fighting while trying to sell and addicts who do whatever they can to obtain it.

I doubt legalizing drugs would decrease drug related deaths. There are plenty more DUI deaths per year than from battles between drug dealers.

On the other side, your saying that drugs cloud people's judgement, making them make bad decisions that only endanger themselves, but endanger others as well. While in a drunk or high state you can become more aggressive or accidently throw your life away.

Exactly. And these deaths far outnumber the ones that would be saved from fights between dealers.

As some people said, Im sure the government has already debated this and decided it is for the well being of the citizens it governs to ban drugs that basically alter your personality that CAN have negative outcomes. Like it is the law to buckle your seatbelt, (scenario)although statistically you get into an accident once every two years it is still in your best interest to wear your seatbelt in the possibility that it is needed/something bad happens. As related to this, I think they should be banned to protect people to reduce casualties. To prevent the robbery of people from said addicts it is up to people to keep themselves safe and have the police as assistants.

Agreed. Legalizing these drugs will cause extra and unnecessary deaths.

I suppose they both both have negative and positive aspects but for the safety of the civilians it should be the choice to pick the one with the better positive:negative ratio and in my opinion banning drugs would be the right choice.

Agreed.

 

[|RK|]

Well, wiz, was that a better argument? I see no counterpoints.

 

[w!zard]

There's 50 states. 25 is half of that. 23 is less than 25. Therefore it follows that 23 is less than 50.

smoking rules are constantly getting stricter. just because some states do not have smoking bans in all public places do not mean they don't have bans at all.

You're making the same mistake again. Eating 50 burgers at McDonalds is somebody's choice; drug use effects judgment, so it's directly causing the deaths.

no, you are making the mistake of ignoring my points. NOT ALL DRUGS AFFECT JUDGMENT IN A DANGEROUS WAY

How is that not clear to you? What word do you not understand? What do you consider to be unbiased? Why don't you actually debate instead of making claims that every source in the world that doesn't agree with you is false? You haven't provided any sources or any facts and all you do is complain that everything is wrong without backing up your statements.

any semi-intelligent person who reads that source will know it's biased. it's very clear they purposely leave out information

Again, you're just making a statement about your opinion. You aren't debating at all. You're just saying things that you think are true without backing it up. You need to have some way of showing that what you're saying has some truth. What you're saying doesn't mean anything until you prove it. and you didn't even try to dispute my point that ecstasy and marijuana cause death upon people other than the user.

it's not an opinion, it's a FACT. xtc and weed are not PHYSICALLY addictive. nor do they impair judgment in any dangerous way

read these. the second link is from a website against weed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mdma
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm


i'm not going to respond to any more of your posts until you show me that you can comprehend mine and stop posting your biased opinion on drugs (that you advertise as fact). too much of what i wrote was ignored or misunderstood by you and until you stop doing that, this debate isn't going to go anywhere

 

[KrazyGlue]

smoking rules are constantly getting stricter. just because some states do not have smoking bans in all public places do not mean they don't have bans at all.

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that second hand smoking isn't harmful, which is what you said earlier.

no, you are making the mistake of ignoring my points. NOT ALL DRUGS AFFECT JUDGMENT IN A DANGEROUS WAY

Name one that doesn't effect judgment "in a dangerous way". And this time, actually back up your point.

any semi-intelligent person who reads that source will know it's biased. it's very clear they purposely leave out information

Like what? Every source in the world has some sort of bias. Your second source is used from the same site that I took this one from and was reviewed by the same board of people.

If you want another source: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32349 (the last bullet)

Basically, 45% of people not DUI because of alcohol are DUI with marijuana. Marijuana is involved in about 8.1% of all DUI deaths. Almost 18000 died from DUI crashes in 2003 (http://www.dui.com/dui-library/fatalities-accidents/statistics/madd-dui-deaths), meaning that marijuana was involved in about 1458 DUI deaths. If it was legalized, we'd be increasing this number unnecessarily.

And please don't claim that this one is biased as well just because you don't agree with it.

it's not an opinion, it's a FACT. xtc and weed are not PHYSICALLY addictive. nor do they impair judgment in any dangerous way

read these. the second link is from a website against weed too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mdma
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

They don't say that it's not physically addictive, so your sources aren't helping your case. You even posted a source that goes against your opinions (the second one).

i'm not going to respond to any more of your posts until you show me that you can comprehend mine

Fine, don't respond if you really don't want to. I don't know why you're so angry. I don't see what you consider to be "not comprehending".

and stop posting your biased opinion on drugs (that you advertise as fact).

You seem to believe that anything you say and any source you have is unbiased and everything that I say and all the sources I post are biased. That's not how it works.

too much of what i wrote was ignored or misunderstood by you and until you stop doing that, this debate isn't going to go anywhere

There you go again, making random claims without backing them up. If you want anybody to actually know what you're talking about, give an example. Until then, what you say doesn't really matter.
____________________________

I still haven't seen you challenge the fact that ecstasy and marijuana will cause extra deaths. By not disputing these points, you're accepting that they are dangerous to those other than the user. And if you accept that, than they should obviously be kept illegal. I don't even care about the first few quotes unless you have some logical reason to believe that marijuana and ecstasy only harm the user.

 

[w!zard]

Yes but that doesn't change the fact that second hand smoking isn't harmful, which is what you said earlier.

you have not posted any information about the harm of second-hand smoke vs. how much of it was inhaled

Name one that doesn't effect judgment "in a dangerous way". And this time, actually back up your point.

tobacco, weed, and xtc. if you read those sources i gave you, you'll see that there's nothing about "impaired judgment."

Like what? Every source in the world has some sort of bias. Your second source is used from the same site that I took this one from and was reviewed by the same board of people.

If you want another source: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32349 (the last bullet)

Basically, 45% of people not DUI because of alcohol are DUI with marijuana.

And please don't claim that this one is biased as well just because you don't agree with it.

i took my second source from a biased site to show you that even they don't lie about marijuana impairing judgment

and your link is an observational study. you cannot infer causation.

They don't say that it's not physically addictive, so your sources aren't helping your case. You even posted a source that goes against your opinions (the second one).

http://www.essortment.com/articles/ecstasy_100011.htm
http://www.spencerrecovery.com/marijuana-addiction.html

the sources are not being used to evaluate anything but my claims of addiction and impairment. so using one that goes against "my opinion" are perfectly fine

You seem to believe that anything you say and any source you have is unbiased and everything that I say and all the sources I post are biased. That's not how it works.

you're the one making the claims, so you need to be the one backing them up

There you go again, making random claims without backing them up. If you want anybody to actually know what you're talking about, give an example. Until then, what you say doesn't really matter.

the examples are everywhere . scroll up

I still haven't seen you challenge the fact that ecstasy and marijuana will cause extra deaths. By not disputing these points, you're accepting that they are dangerous to those other than the user. And if you accept that, than they should obviously be kept illegal. I don't even care about the first few quotes unless you have some logical reason to believe that marijuana and ecstasy only harm the user.

of course they will cause more deaths, but that's not what we're arguing about. and if you don't know what we're arguing about by now, i'm done

 

[KrazyGlue]

of course they will cause more deaths, but that's not what we're arguing about. and if you don't know what we're arguing about by now, i'm done

Hold on a second. I don't even need to respond to the other quotes.

I know what the argument is about; it's about whether we should legalize illegal drugs. And you said that you wanted to legalize ecstasy and marijuana. I asked you to state your reasons and you said that people have the right to use them because they only harm the user. And now you've just admitted that they harm people other than the user.

So what's your main case for legalizing them now that you've gone back on your main point?


EDIT: Ah, here's the quote I was looking for:

they're a danger to the user, not society

 

[w!zard]

And now you've just admitted that they harm people other than the user.

i never said this

 

[KrazyGlue]

i never said this

Yes, you did. You're quoted saying it below.

of course they will cause more deaths

 

[w!zard]

they will cause some USERS to die

 

[KrazyGlue]

they will cause some USERS to die

Then what about the 1400+ DUI deaths from marijuana per year?

 

[w!zard]

that's not the drug's fault, that's the user's fault for being stupid.

1400 isn't even a significant number considering there's over 300 million people in the US.

 

[KrazyGlue]

that's not the drug's fault, that's the user's fault for being stupid.

It is the drug's fault; they impair judgment. It effects the person's ability to decide whether or not to drive while intoxicated.

1400 isn't even a significant number considering there's over 300 million people in the US.

First of all, it shouldn't matter whether it is statistically significant; it should matter that over a thousand of people are dying unnecessarily.

Second of all, my whole point is that this number will increase if you legalize it.
____________________

You still haven't challenged the fact that these drugs harm people other than the user. I don't see why there is any reason to legalize a drug that will cause people to die.

So, (correct me if I'm wrong) your main reason for legalizing marijuana and ecstasy is: While they will harm and/or kill people, this factor should be ignored because it's not astoundingly large.

 

[w!zard]

It is the drug's fault; they impair judgment. It effects the person's ability to decide whether or not to drive while intoxicated.

i've already addressed this many times. read the links i posted if you want sources

First of all, it shouldn't matter whether it is statistically significant; it should matter that over a thousand of people are dying unnecessarily.

Second of all, my whole point is that this number will increase if you legalize it.

its statistical significant DOES matter. many other things such as video games, mushroom picking, prescriptionless sleeping pills, etc. would be banned if you counted any increase as enough increase to ban.

So, (correct me if I'm wrong) your main reason for legalizing marijuana and ecstasy is: While they will harm and/or kill people, this factor should be ignored because it's not astoundingly large.

that's part of it. the other part is that it doesn't cause people to dangerous things, people decide to do those things themselves.

 

[Rogue Pit]

@Above.

If the drugs impair judgement than they necessairly aren't making the decision with full understanding of the consequences.

Driving under intoxication is a threat to not the only user but to others in the car, and the random pedestrian.

By legalizing said drugs im going to have to agree with crazyglue and say that it will only heighten the number of problems because of reasons above.

 

[w!zard]

If the drugs impair judgement than they necessairly aren't making the decision with full understanding of the consequences.

ugh, maybe reading comprehension is something that won't be a problem in the debate hall

there are drugs that do not impair judgment. those should be legal

 

[KrazyGlue]

i've already addressed this many times. read the links i posted if you want sources

Your links have nothing to do with this. Almost everybody can agree that they at least impair vision; and that's enough to cause car crashes. And the majority of sources also agree that marijuana impairs judgment. Even when I look at pro-marijuana websites, they don't mention driving.

its statistical significant DOES matter. many other things such as video games, mushroom picking, prescriptionless sleeping pills, etc. would be banned if you counted any increase as enough increase to ban.

No, no, no. Those examples you gave are different. Anyone who participates in these is making a choice to do so. The non-users who die in car crashes never made any sort of decision to be killed, and they weren't even being targeted by the person. They just happened to end up as a casualty of drug use.

You're thinking about it from the perspective of "the percentage is low", which is the kind of perspective that would change if someone you knew died because some person was too high to realize that he/she shouldn't be driving while intoxicated.

Letting people get high should never take priority over saving people's lives.

that's part of it. the other part is that it doesn't cause people to dangerous things, people decide to do those things themselves.

Even if this were true (which I still disagree with) the drugs still cause the actual deaths due to visual impairment.
____________________________________

The other issues are:

1. The number of DUI deaths will increase, probably close to the level of alcohol use in DUI.
2. DUI is not the only issue. There are other problems such as second hand smoke that would add to this total.

Sources that say marijuana impairs vision AND judgment:
http://www.hazelden.org/web/go/info_marijmyth
http://www.savp.iastate.edu/drug-info/marijuana.php
http://www.glenbeigh.com/Resources/DrugQuickFacts/Marijuana/tabid/99/Default.aspx
http://www.waynecounty.com/sheriff/protectYours/Dfaq_mari.htm#driving
http://www.sacsconsulting.com/book/chapter8p3.htm


And don't say that they're ALL biased. I'm sure I could find more of these sources but 5 is probably enough for now.

 

[Rogue Pit]

Wizard in your earlier post you say that drugs that don't impair judgement should be legal because they don't threats to others. The drugs you listed were Xtc, Weed, Marijuana.

Marijuana sources are listed above and I found some for xtc.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/644471
http://www.ecstasy.ws/e-side-effects.htm


Even if they don't impair judgement they are still hazardous to the user and by legalizing them the government would give consent for people to kill themselves.

I have here an interview like thing i did with a friend over aim. I'll take the irrelevant things out.

[14:38] Rogue Pit: so when u take xtc
[14:38] Rogue Pit: do you think that your judgement becomes impair?
[14:39] Anonymous: your just enjoying so many other things that you dont focus on brawl as much
[14:39] Anonymous: and when u do, you a tad bit worse then you would normally be
[14:40] Rogue Pit: So you think 100% as clear as you would if you didnt take it
[14:40] Anonymous: .. its hardto explain
[14:40] Anonymous: ok let me put it this way
[14:40] Anonymous: YOU THINK WAY MORE
[14:40] Anonymous but you think about so much
[14:40] Anonymous: that you tend to drift off into space forgetting what you were doing
[14:40] Anonymous: YES YOU THINK MORE
[14:40] Anonymous: but if u werent on it
[14:40] Anonymous: you would play better
[14:40] Anonymous: understand?
[14:40] Rogue Pit: eh...
[14:41] Rogue Pit: so...
[14:41] Rogue Pit: so its like
[14:41] Rogue Pit: you focus on winnin the game
[14:41] Rogue Pit: u take it
[14:41] Rogue Pit: hundreds of things rush into ur head
[14:41] Rogue Pit: and ur lose some focus on what u were doin
[14:42] Anonymous: basically
[14:42] Rogue Pit: and start to ponder about other things
[14:42] Anonymous: EXACTLY
[14:42] Anonymous: your still playing the game
[14:42] Anonymous: butyour not even thinking about it
[14:42] Anonymous: making you worse then you would normally be
[14:42] Rogue Pit: lets say you were driving
[14:42] Rogue Pit: were the chances of you gettin into an accident increase?
[14:42] Anonymous: on extacy?
[14:42] Rogue Pit: yes
[14:43] Anonymous: theoretically... Yes..
[14:43] Rogue Pit: k
[14:44] Rogue Pit: ic
[14:44] Rogue Pit: do you mind if i quote you in the discussion. I won't release ur name I'll just list your IMs as Anonymous
[14:45] Anonymous: list me as Anonymous
[14:45] Anonymous: would this be just for the Smash community?
[14:45] Rogue Pit: only people who are accepted as temporal debaters can view it
[14:45] Rogue Pit: and mods and regular debaters
[14:47] Anonymous: so i hope that helped, feel free to contact me for any drug related questions.. haha
[14:47] Rogue Pit: lol k

I believe this helps my case.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

i am neural, but look at whats legal. and compare it to pot. tabacco is addictive and millions(don't quote the millions) of people have died or have had their life shortened . can Marijuana kill that many people at the kind of rate? and really they should staight out say this may make you feel good bad it cost money and it kills you

take our pick

 

[|RK|]

Since you are obviously not listening, wiz, allow me to repeat myself:

Okay, then, the illegal drugs have shown harmful potential in taking them as consistently as something such as alcohol. As alcohol is used more than the illegal drugs, as well as tobacco, the chances of normal people breaking the law to gain their addictive substances back are rather high. This was shown by the futile attempt in the past, otherwise known as temperance. This means that keeping alcohol and tobacco legal, crime levels will theoretically stabilize, rather than spike by an unsuccessful ban. This means that it's actually safer to keep illegal drugs illegal, rather than let normal people get addicted and ruin their families, their unborn children, and the lives of others. This also means that the status quo is actually safer in order to protect those who don't use drugs, such as children, from being separated from their family members and lose an opportunity to excel. These are the types of children that end up on the streets, committing crimes, joining gangs to have someone to look up to, etc. Now, let's say that the drug using family member is the breadwinner. You can see how this puts more incomplete families on the street. Once they are taken into the homeless shelters, the amount of money needed to feed, shower, and keep them clothed puts a damper on the economy on a large scale level. Status quo is the best choice right now.

If you cannot counter these points, which I directed to you, then all of your arguments are null.

 

[KrazyGlue]

i am neural, but look at whats legal. and compare it to pot. tabacco is addictive and millions(don't quote the millions) of people have died or have had their life shortened . can Marijuana kill that many people at the kind of rate?

Tobacco can't be banned because too many people use it. It would be like retrying the prohibition amendment.

Drugs should never be legalized just to be consistent when they will obviously cause deaths to those other than the user.

and really they should staight out say this may make you feel good bad it cost money and it kills you

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify please?

 

[Sukai]

In a nutshell, such said drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, for one reason or another, they impair judgment and alter body conditions that would render the user unfit for even everyday tasks.

Another reason is it would obstruct the justice system.

Scenario:
Xtc is legal, by government law.
John Doe goes to the local pharmacy to get a pick.
John Doe has anger issues, so he suppresses then with Xtc. it calms him down and brightens his mood.
Quoted from RoguePit's link...

Brain imaging research in humans indicates that Ecstasy causes injury to the brain, affecting neurons that use the chemical serotonin to communicate with other neurons. The serotonin system plays a direct role in regulating mood, aggression, sexual activity, sleep, and sensitivity to pain. Many of the side effects users face with Ecstasy use are similar to those found with the use of cocaine and amphetamines: Psychological Ecstasy side effects, including confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, severe anxiety, and paranoia - during and sometimes weeks after taking Ecstasy.

after taking the drug, he heads home, by car.
The euphoria damages his senses and he is completely unfit for driving at the moment. Doe is then involved in a car accident, tragically taking his life.
His family sues the pharmacy and the city for exposing the man of the house to a drug that took his life.

Try and find the bad parts of this.
It's generally not ideal to expose the public to dangerous drugs, because even if the government for some odd reason decided not to care for the well being of the people, they still have to worry about the backlash that these drugs can take on the inside of the system, too many problems will arise and too much controversy will be taken into question, especially the decision making process in which legalizing Xtc went under.

It's a bad idea in the long run.
Hell, it's a bad idea in general.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

sorry meant they should tell them, the user, the facts, like hey you will be high and happy but... depending on drug. but now that i think about it they should still be banned because some are about as addicting as tabacco with many of the same problems and i,ve seen people trying to stop tabacco.

so really a small group or large group would refuse it and the others would be high and that sucks