The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

This is the LD resolution for Nov/Dec 2010...so sort of LD format 1st round-intro just say you'll accept the challenge and place your argument 2nd- aff cx/neg cx 3rd- final statements/rebuttals Good Luck to us both! --- "Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous." Dale Orban, Detective Sergeant, Regina Police Service and Executive Director, Regina Police Association Canada said in a Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs focusing on Canada's anti-drug legislation and policies in May 2001. Because I affirm Orban's statement, I am here to negate the resolution which states: Resolved: "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice." I accept my opponent's value (or JUSTICE is my value) My value criterion is must maximize total net benefits to the common good. This relates to my value in that by ultimately benefiting the common good, or working towards something that is beneficial for all, the world community is enhanced as a whole from a diverse collaboration effort in something that would please everyone. The value criterion achieves my opponent's values because… If it is***Justice- when justice is brought down rightly, everyone benefits and benefits under the same law—there is no unfairness If it is***Equality/Democracy- the net benefits should be equal to all parties involved and the common good includes everyone thus this is a fail and equal v/c If it is***Utilitarianism/Morality- benefiting everyone and maximizing benefits achieves the moral obligation to do so under utilitarianism/morality My definitions for this round are as follows: The US Drug Enforcement and Administration defines illegal drugs as Illegal drugs- as marijuana, methamphetamine, phencyclidine (PCP), and lysergic acid diethyamide (LSD). (USDEA) MedTerms, an online medical dictionary defines public health as Public Health- The approach to medicine that is concerned with the health of the community as a whole. (MedTERMS) and Criminal Justice-is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts. (WIKIPEDIA) My first contention is that addiction, while it might have the characteristics of a disease, should still be regulated by law. Stephen J. Morse of UPENN Law writes in his paper ADDICTION, GENETICS, AND CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY that quote, "Even if addiction is properly characterized as an illness, most addicts are nonetheless capable of being guided by good reasons, including the incentives law can provide." In a Workshop On The Genetics Of Drug Addiction, hosted in November 2003, by the National Academies Steering Committee On The Genetics Of Drug Addiction, Morse writes and Henrick J. Harwood of the Lewin group Presents "One has to first recognize that genetics is just one of many causes of addiction. Two underlying theses: •(Bullet-pointThe discovery of genetic or of any other physical or psychosocial cause of action raises no new issues concerning responsibility. •(Bullet-pointDiscovery of such causes does not per se create an excusing or mitigating condition for criminal or any other type of behavior." They continue in saying quote"most addicts should be responsible for most criminal behavior motivated by addiction, but … addiction can in some cases affect the person's ability to grasp and be guided by reason. Yet, criminal law is about actions and not about genetics. On top of this, genetics accounts for about 50% of the overall variability of addiction, thus genetics is not the only mechanism." End quote. With all of this taken into account, I also will add that as Kenneth Chiacchia states quote "It is important to note that "insanity" is a legal term, not a psychological one, and experts disagree whether it has valid psychological meaning." Also not guilty by reason of insanity ( NGRI) defenses are rare to occur and work. Drug abusers even when predisposed by genetics or even heritability to commit crimes for their addiction—stealing etc. definitely cannot plead insanity unless their case was rare and could be diagnosed legally certifiably insane. "On average, the percentage of NGRI defendants found nationwide is around .26 percent" says Chiacchia. My second contention is that we don't have to choose between public health and criminal justice. The resolution is worded so that the affirmative must argue for public health but it does not explicitly say that the negative must argue solely criminal justice. We can use both a criminal justice system and a public health approach. An exclusively criminal justice system or exclusively public health approach will not resolve the situation and will be more costly in both efforts and results; a symbiotic relationship between the two is the most effective approach. How can the issue be eradicated or improved to a better situation when under a solely public health approach, we are unable to actually achieve results when someone refuses to seek or comply with help/ health information from his doctor or from the clinic? No one can enforce it without the criminal justice component of force and compulsion under law in place. We need that component in order for the ideas of a solely public health approach to work. •since addiction is self afflicted and the user, at all times, can be compelled (even if only a little) by reason and the threat of negative consequences, the criminal justice system should remain in place to discourage people from using illegal drugs-----without the compulsion of the criminal justice system to coerce a person into treatment, we will face a serious problem that we would want to eradicate •My sub-contention is that using this reward-punishment system According to a study done by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), drug abuse ranks number one among the top ten out of 36 problems which Americans perceive to be a very serious problem. 82% of Americans recognize drug abuse to be a major issue. Most striking is the way it affects the community----particularly the school: according to NIDA from a National Health Survey on Drug Abuse quote "Children with prenatal cocaine exposure are (1.5 times) more likely to need special education services in school. Special education costs for this population are estimated at $23 million per year." How can a solely public health approach help solve this problem and reap a greater benefit to the common good which needs this malefactor to be eradicated from the community? The UN has shown governments that have done this and has succeeded in applying both a criminal law and public health approach to the drug issue. In a radio broadcast by their Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) the synopsis reads that quote "In two Caribbean countries, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, the governments are seizing the large real estate properties of drug lords and converting them into rehabilitation centres. Even the drug dealers' limousines are taken and turned into ambulances for the victims of the drug trade!" This is surely a maximal net benefit to both victims (the abuser and community) and it is in accordance with the law since those drugs are illegal. The affirmative must prove to you that solely a public health approach without that necessary criminal justice component is actually a better, more favorable approach to dealing with illegal drug abusers and that it alone will solve the issue. Sources: www.medterms.com www.justice.gov/dea/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice debate-central.ncpa.org http://www.nida.nih.gov... http://psychology.jrank.org... http://archives.drugabuse.gov... http://www.un.org... *This site won't let me post full sources so look for them in the next round. Thanks again and good luck!