drug legalization

Thank you, jstudt76. I will open with my negation case. Burden of Proof: So, the resolution entails that should I find a drug that should not be legal, I win. Negation Case P1: People fear the legal and social consequences of illicit drugs Healthtalk.org, who talked to young people about their experiences with drugs, listed both: (1) Fear of the risks involved in drug-taking, and (2) Family relationships, as being half the reasons why young people do not take drugs [3]. Also, as I demonstrate later, young people (under the age of 25) are precisely the people who should not be allowed to take drugs. To further solidify, a 2005 study by Rosalie Pacula found that the availability of drugs affected the decision of people. If there was significant risk in obtaining the drug (i.e. it was illegal), this was often a sufficient deterrent in preventing people from purchasing he drug [10]. For example, “higher fines and longer jail times were consistently associated with reduced cannabis prevalence”. From this premise, it should be readily apparent that making drug illegal helps prevent people doing them. P2: Drugs are very dangerous According to the American Office of Public Affairs, 40,393 people were killed by illicit drugs in 2010 [2]. From another report, a closer examination of these deaths reveals that 94.7% of all unintentional poisoning deaths are caused by drugs. In 2004, this meant nearly 20,000 deaths [11]. Keep in mind that people are not trying to kill themselves. Due to the ridiculously high rate of poisoning deaths being solely attributed to drugs, would it not be best if drugs were kept from people as often as possible? To further give you an idea of the potency in illicit drugs, *six times* as many people use alcohol compared to illicit drugs, yet people die from illicit drugs at 174% of the rate of alcohol deaths [8]. Alcohol is also a deadly drug, yet these illicit drugs are staggeringly more dangerous! Here are the effects of the more potent drugs: Heroin: According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in 2011, nearly a quarter (23%) of all people who tried heroin in their lives were addicted to it [5]. Addiction is so damaging that it is considered a mental disease [6]. There are said to be three results from addiction: (1) tolerance (meaning it takes more of the drug to get the same effect), (2) dependence (self-explanatory) and (3) deterioration of white matter in the brain (meaning in sharp decrease in decision-making, behaviour regulation and ability to cope with stressful situations). There are also other risk factors strongly associated with heroin, including: - Overdose - *Comorbidity* (people who have drug addictions are at least two times more likely to incur a second mental disease) - Infection (sharing needles) - STDs (unprotected sex) - Collapsed veins - Infection of heart lining and/or valves - Abscesses - Liver and/or kidney disease Above: A heroin user who destroyed her life in merely months Cocaine: is a very powerful drug. Common highly correlated effects include: restlessness, irritability, anxiety, with paranoia, paranoia psychosis (where the user loses touch with reality) and death being somewhat rarer, but certain possibilities [8]. Further issues are denoted below: Above: The effects of Cocaine abuse Above: A cocaine user merely years after taking the substance Scopolamine: is used occasionally for its hallucinogenic properties [7]. However, this drug can *easily*: destroy a person’s ability to say ‘no’ to things (i.e. the person becomes very suggestible), wipe a person’s memory of whatever happened during drug use and can kill in small doses [12] [13]. I emphasise the ease in which all these things can happen. This leaves the victim in a state where he/she could help the attacker rape, steal, assault or really anything, whilst the person is under the influence. In Columbia where Scopolamine readily available, there are *at least 50,000* victims of scopolamine each year [14]. From this premise, there should be no doubt in your mind as to the deadliness of drugs, which is going to give my coming arguments some serious impact. A1: Under 25, brain has not fully developed According to a mentalhealthdaily.com articles, of which references several researched papers, the human brain does not fully develop until roughly the age of 25. What this means for this debate is that there are, on average, 4 years in which young people can make some seriously bad decisions relating to some seriously harmful substances [1]. Until roughly the age of 25, what lacks in development is the prefrontal cortex. This means that [1]: - Organised thinking is lacking, meaning that hormones often influence decisions - Risk management is quite poor, meaning that instant gratification will often take precedence over long-term rewards - Impulse control is low, meaning that you are much more likely to give into urges which are detrimental to your well-being So, the impact is that people under 25 are not in a position to make these potentially very harmful decisions, and thus all drugs should be legal to them. A2: Drugged Driving According to the American Office of Public Affairs, in 2007, approximately one in eight weekend night-time drivers were found to be positive for *at least* one illicit drug [2]. Furthermore, from a self-report study (National Survey on Drug Use and Health), about 10.2 million Americans self-reported driving under the influence of an illicit drug during the past year. Keep in mind that this occurred when the drugs were illegal. Now, since people have been shown here to be unable to control themselves, please consider how A1 and A2 show how drugs are alter the state of mind drastically and how young people are quite poor at making important decisions. Now, amplify all of this with what can be used as a killing weapon: a car. To give this line of argument impact, in 2012, *more than* one in three (38%) drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents tested positive for drugs [2]. The impact here is that drugged driving is already a problem, despite illicit drugs being illegal, and legalisation will make the problem far worse. A3: Effect on society When someone destroys his/her life through drug abuse, it is not merely the individual that suffers, but his/her relatives, loved one, community and society, too. In terms of macro-economics, according to drugabuse.gov, in 2004, “Illicit drug use in the United States is estimated to have cost the U.S economy more than $193 billion in 2007“[4]. It can be largely attributed to over 1,742,887 hospital emergency department drug misuse or abuse [8]. Comparatively, merely $15 billion is spent yearly on ‘The War on Drugs’, which as you can see, is not even close to a tenth of the healthcare costs illicit drug use inflicts on the American society yearly [9]. Thus, keeping the giant of drug abuse cost is OBVIOUSLY going to outweigh the relatively measly cost of maintaining a war on drugs. In terms of progress, for every $1 spent in curbing drug use, a return of $4 to $7 in “reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice cost and theft, is received [8]. If legalising drugs is a good idea, then why is it that curbing use brings returns as such? According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there are *six times* as many homicides committed by people under the influence of illicit substances than those who are looking for money to buy drugs [8]. References [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] http://tinyurl.com... [14] http://tinyurl.com...