Drugs should be decriminalized

Thank you for your response! "For those who think it through, trying not to get caught, chances are they won't." Sadly, this is the case. So we go and fill up our jails with moral criminals like drug users instead of property criminals. That's not right. As I mentioned, the police are wasting considerable force on moral criminals instead of property criminals. "Yet, the punishment for Drugs, is fairly similar to that of most other crimes." But if you're addicted to a substance, you tend to care less, and your judgment tends to be impaired. The first time, they might just say that they'll just do it once, but then maybe once more, then maybe once more, and then they're an addict. Capital punishment or life imprisonment would probably be a fairly successful deterrent for that first time, but that's cruel and unusual punishment. "I don't understand that either, as the drug laws have been enforced, which is obvious when we look at the statistics of how many people have been caught and placed in jail." Then they come out of jail and back to their drugs. Even rehab programs are only reasonably successful. "I can have a drink or two and be completely level-headed. Can the same be said of other Drugs?" The short answer is a very irrelevant no. Now, here's why it's irrelevant. In the state of Oregon, it is illegal to drive when your blood alcohol concentration is above .08% or you fail a field sobriety test. So, for some people, that is indeed one beer. For some people, that's 5 beers. It's the same way with drugs. Sure, it is probably shifted significantly towards the former. As long as it's illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, then it is a moot point. "Clearly you've missed the point." No, you misunderstood mine, but I'm not about to get into a spat. I meant to extend my points from the first argument and justify them with the points I made in the more recent one. I'm sorry if I was confusing. "What possible benefit is there, for someone who becomes addicted to Cocaine?" The high? But I disagree with the principle of the whole point. Nukes and guns harm other people. I see no benefit in smoking cigarettes, but clearly some people do. And clearly some people see a benefit is doing cocaine, since they do it. "Alcohol, on the other hand, will not change its effect regardless of whatever previous condition you might have." What on earth are you talking about? What if you had a liver problem? What if you are a small woman? Alcohol affects many people very differently. "yet there are a whopping 20,000 people die from prescription drug overdoses alone." I fail to see the point you're trying to make here. These are statistics for prescription drugs, which are legal already. "I mean, I can't find a reason why a drug cartel would kill their loyal customers who are addicted to their drugs, unless the customer is refusing to pay." I think you answered your own question there, so I don't have to. "If you are also unaware of what's happening and who is getting killed in Mexico by the drug wars, i suggest you refrain from making absurd claims like 'Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you'" I don't understand what you're saying. I know that people are being killed in the drug wars, and I know that the drug cartels are killing people. That's all I need to know for my argument, and that's all I'm saying with my argument. "If anything, private businesses would care MORE about profitability, and therefore increase their prices BEYOND that of what the government would sell." Yes, your point is correct, but do you understand how high the prices are currently from drug dealers? They drive the prices way up, since, as you said, "all [drug cartels] care about is money." They usually put a bunch of junk in with the drug and sell it way above its true value [1]. "In some states such as Alabama, Long guns require no background checks, and no licenses if you are not carrying the weapon around." Well, I could get in a whole new debate with you on that one... But in other states, it does require a background check and license, and it would make logical sense to assume that the illegal gun commerce is mostly in those states. "Why do you think the FDA forces drug companies to prove that their product is SAFE, before placing them on shelves?" Because they serve a medical purpose and the government is making sure that drug companies aren't harming you. It has nothing to do with you harming yourself, which is what the drug laws try to prevent. I'll go back to the cigarette example with this. I think that the FDA regulates cigarettes, but they are certainly harmful. "Can you overdose on cigarettes?" Yes. [2] "it was the government who pushed the bill, requiring ALL cigarette packages to label their product as potentially causing cancer." Yes. That is a good thing. Label drugs too. I'm all for truth in marketing. Cigarettes are still legal, though. "You could overdose very VERY easily on drugs, yet you could eat and eat mcdonalds until your stomach is about to burst and STILL not die of a heart attack." If you take a whole bottle of Aspirin, you will experience an Aspirin overdose. You could very likely die. Aspirin is legal, is it not? "Only adults can buy them. They have to be tested and approved." Sure. I'm good with that... "Tested and approved for what, exactly?" Relative safety (I know no drugs are safe. But they're even less safe if you put rat poison in them, so they would be tested against a completely pure sample of that drug). "In the end, it comes down to two criterions: -The potential to abuse the substance -The potential harm of the substance" I am not sure where you came up with those criteria, but I do not agree. That is not the government's job. Look. I hate drugs. I think that they're a weak way out, and I think that they really mess people up. I would never smoke or drink either. McDonald's disgusts me. But, just because I don't personally understand why people would do such things to themselves, does not mean that I should let my beliefs cloud over the fact that other people are different. If they want to do bad things to their body, then they can go ahead and do that. It reminds me of my favorite movie, "Blazing Saddles." Bart finds out that the man later identified as Jim is a heavy drinker and doesn't eat, and he says, "A man drink like that and he don't eat, he is going to die!" Jim responds with a very frank, "When?" Now, it might be slightly silly to quote bad comedy movies from the 70's in a very serious debate, but first of all, I love that movie, and second of all, it makes a good point. Some people really don't care about themselves, and they turn to drugs and alcohol for comfort. I think that is sad, but it is what they do, and it's not the government's job to tell them they can't do that. As it happens, decriminalizing drugs will reduce the crime rate, and not just because drug charges wouldn't exist anymore. It would also lower the rate of violent and other property crime, since people wouldn't have to steal money to get overly priced drugs. It would also reduce organized crime, since gangs are often associated with the sale of drugs. If done correctly, it could even help the economy and make our country a few bucks. With that, I would like to thank my opponent for his extremely impassioned and insightful arguments. As wonderful as CON's arguments were; however, I feel as though there is no choice but to vote PRO on this one. Thank you. 1. http://www.sethson.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...