Drugs should be decriminalized

"the police are wasting considerable force on moral criminals instead of property criminals. " Wow. You make it sound as if Police are spending more time busting into peoples houses just to search for drugs. Oh wait, police can't do that, cause of a little thing called probable cause. Yes, that is correct. Most Drug raids and busts, are either on people who are ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING/SELLING the drugs, or people who have committed OTHER crimes and drugs were merely an added offense. The former is illegal, even if Drugs become legalized, and the latter is more than simple "Moral criminals" who probably have committed property crimes. So yeah, my opponents argument is a bust. "But if you're addicted to a substance, you tend to care less, and your judgment tends to be impaired. " As mentioned above, rarely is anyone arrested SIMPLY for doing drugs. Its also why, for example, some sentences are NOT prison sentences but Rehab sentences. And yes, rehab centers do help in staving off addiction. But i find this argument laughable. First off, your judgment doesn't stay impaired after you've stopped using drugs. Secondly, maybe if you are a complete loner, you wouldn't care if you went to jail, but most people aren't. Thirdly, being in a prison where drugs are scarce, would make you care more, and I would like to think this is common sense. Especially if you were more addicted, you would have a harder time in jail. My opponents arguments just don't follow through. "Then they come out of jail and back to their drugs. " There are always repeaters. This is the same for ANY crime, including Theft, assault, and even murder. I believe my opponent has failed his argument in showing how the punishment is any more effective in deterring people, than any other crime. "So, for some people, that is indeed one beer. For some people, that's 5 beers. It's the same way with drugs. " Sorry, but no. If i have no drugs on me, but I've taken some Cocaine, and am still completely sober and lucid, I won't get arrested. There is no test for drug use beyond examination in a lab. The reason why the level of Alcohol is set at .08%, is because that is the determined limit of alcohol in a person's body to which he is lucid and sober enough to drive safely. If youve taken drugs and are completely lucid, there ARE no grounds to arrest you. But here's where the similarity ends. Most social drinkers do not require enough drinks to become so drunk that they cannot stand anymore. With Drugs, the psychological effect, the need to achieve the same high as before, exists much, much more strongly than with alcohol. It's why, as I said before, there are AA meetings and Drug Rehab clinics. This is the vital difference between drugs and alcohol. This is what my opponent fails to understand. "And clearly some people see a benefit is doing cocaine, since they do it. " Did you not read my argument, carefully? I clearly stated that we weigh the potential harm, with the benefits. The potential harm of Cigs, isn't as high as other drugs. If you've missed this part in your History Class, here's a recap. The reason why Russia and the U. S. A never started a nuclear third world war, is because BOTH had nukes and BOTH were afraid of M. A. D. That is, mutually assured destruction. These are benefits that outweigh the harm. The benefit o Cocaine is the high, but that is also the harm, because of the addictive and tolerance potential. The more you use Cocaine, the more you need to use in order to get the same high. This is hardly comparable to cigarettes. I used to be a casual smoker for 4 years, never needing to increase the number of puffs per day. And one day, I just quit, cold turkey. I could never say the same for Cocaine. "Alcohol affects many people very differently. " You are confusing affect with effect. Someone with a bad liver, or smaller people, will have a harder time breaking down alcohol, and therefore they will become drunk faster, and longer. But the sole effect is sobriety, with a difference in time. If only prescription drugs were this simple, your argument would hold some water. Prescription drugs, will AFFECT the body with DIFFERENT EFFECTS to different people. This is the Vital difference that you are failing to grasp regarding prescription drugs. "These are statistics for prescription drugs, which are legal already. "-You The point is, alcohol is something you can buy at any corner store in almost every city. Prescription drugs are not. Yet, even with such a STRICT restriction on prescription drugs, there are still MUCH more people who die from Presc. Drug overdoses than Alcohol overdoses. Clearly it is much simpler to overdose on Drugs than Alcohol, yes? This is, of course, after doctors TELL their patients how many to take in one day. Now, think if these prescription drugs made it onto the shelves, as easy to buy as alcohol? If you still cannot see the point, then you are beyond hope. "I know that people are being killed in the drug wars, and I know that the drug cartels are killing people. " But you have no idea who's getting killed, or why. If you don't know this, then clearly your previous statement is FALSE. "do you understand how high the prices are currently from drug dealers? " Sure, and unless these drug dealers are complete morons, if drugs become legal, they won't keep selling them for the current prices. And that's my point. Drug dealers, cartels, are capable of selling their product at LOWER PRICES than that of the government or private businesses. Cartels have already refined their process for purifying drugs, so no cost goes to R&D. Cartels don't need to hire people for minimum wages, cause the minimum wage is whatever the cartel wants it to be. This is my point. "the government is making sure that drug companies aren't harming you. It has nothing to do with you harming yourself" Actually, they're the same thing, and here's why. No one is forcing you to take drugs. You can, and people do, refuse to take medicine, vaccines, prescription drugs. Every drug has a label that LISTS ALL the possible harms and side-effects. These are risks. And the FDA exists to MINIMIZE these risks. By doing so, they minimize the possible HARM that you are doing to yourself. As stated above, it is YOUR decision to take the drugs. You can AVOID potentially harming yourself by refusing the drugs. Whether or not you are doing more harm to yourself by taking prescription drugs, is what the FDA is trying to limit. So yes, the FDA is there to limit you from harming yourself. "Aspirin is legal, is it not? " Acute aspirin overdose has a death rate of 2%. Very rarely is aspirin overdose lethal. "Relative safety" Again, my opponent has advocated only a single restriction, that is, age. One of the main reasons why prescription drugs require a doctor, is because the doctor EXPLAINS which drug is best, and what NOT to mix the drugs with. My opponent seems to prescribe to "It's their body, i don't care". I suppose, if you don't care about someone who his stabbing himself in the leg, and have the audacity to simply walk past them without a second glance, then people doing drugs and overdosing, people with high blood pressure, taking a drug that had the side-effect of increased blood pressure but wasn't notified because the drug that used to be prescription is now free to sell at any convenience store, wouldn't bother him at all. But it bothers me. I actually do care if people are doing harm to themselves. And quite a few people agree with me, or they wouldn't bother dispatching police, a government organization, to talk down people who are about to commit suicide. My opponent is wrong. The government does care if we do harm to ourselves, or they wouldn't have forced Cigarette companies to label their product as harmful. And so do I.