Drug Legalization

Again, thanking my opponent for his response. And no, i fail to understand where the mixed message resides, although i am hardly surprised as to why you feel this way. "I know that the FDA is necessary." The vital part of the FDAs system is to ban drugs that are lethal. Please explain how the FDA can properly enforce their rules if they are unable to ban the drugs. "Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad?" I agree. Clearly, this government, that has banned Child Pornography and selling assault rifles to minors, could not possibly tell us what is good and what is bad. Clearly, the government should not be trusted. Putting that to the side, are you telling me that organizations such as the ATF, which crack down on underage drinking and unregistered illegal firearms passing from person to person, are bad organizations that should not be trusted? "People should read the labels." I have a bottle of Advil right infront of me. It states: Warning: Do not take Advil if taking acetylsalicyclic acid or other products containing Ibuprofen, or if allergic to ASA, salicylates, or anti-inflammatory drugs, or any of its ingredients. Now, how many people do you think, out of a random group of 1000 from the general public, understand any of those chemical compositions or its derivative names? Furthermore, will you visit the doctor every time you have a migrane or headache? Or every time your child scrapes his knee? I shall make my point, after you answer said question. "It should require things on labels" It already does require things on labels. "it should be able to ban things outright." Ill take that as a typo. "we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug." First off, one clinical trial, no matter how bad the results, is sufficient to be labeled as "tested". So, the untested drug absurdity is gone from the label. Secondly, I dont understand what you mean by wanting to "Re-label said drugs once theyve been tested". "You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them." My opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never complained or claimed to have said that we need labels. We already have labels. We do not need what is already present. I did however say that the FDA is responsible for what goes on the labels. "If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead" First you advocate letting them all die, as that would be good for mankind. Now you advocate that we should heal them, as that would be good for the economy. Please make up your mind. "No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment." Eliminated how? Last time i checked, the average lifespan of the disabled, are roughly the same as the lifespan of a non-disabled. "The option to use drugs is natural" I dont understand this either. How is it natural to be able to use Cocaine, pot and other drugs that are currently restricted. "we don't kill off druggies" Youve done nothing but advocated this. By "kill off", i dont mean that we kill them, i mean to purposefully eliminate them from the population. And that is what you are doing by advocating this. I will quote from you: "Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool." Youve basically said that Legalization of Drugs allows us to recognize those with the Suicide "trait", allowing for their immediate removal from society. Therefore, you are advocating that we recognize and remove them from society. Otherwise, why else would we need to recognize them in the first place? "If they can survive, then by all means, they survived." Of course they will survive. Suicide is not a trait. "We don't know that there is no suicide gene" The problem with this statement, is two fold. First, suicide is an act. Can you say that Working as a bakery chef, is an inheritable trait? Of course not. For someone to want to become a Bakery chef, there are certain emotions and experiences that are required. The same for Suicide. Secondly, most drug users are not suicidal. There are many recreational drug users who use, for example, ecstasy, as a sexual enhancement drug. As for Intelligence being inherited: Although, by stupidity, i didnt mean intelligence, but rather the specific stupid act, in this case of taking drugs, that is inherited as your suicide trait would naturally conclude, intelligence being inherited is a mixed issue at best. First off, Herrnstein and Murray both caution the interpretation of the bell curve, as they acknowledge that environmental effects could be present. Secondly, studies done by people such as James Flynn have concluded that the IQ has increased over the past 100 years(1) and other studies have determined that various environmental effects have affected the IQ(2). "If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would." Even if they ant afford health care or cannot afford to see a doctor on a regular basis whenever they need to buy a bottle of aspirin? Or cannot understand english as well as others? "My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal." My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have never even stated that Companies have the authority to ban substances of any kind. That is what the FDA is for. Perhaps my opponent has misunderstood my argument. I am fairly certain that my opponent also believes that driving under the influence of such drugs should also be prohibited, as is walking around the streets freely smoking or snorting these drugs. Therefore, my opponent is advocating that if the usage of the drug places any person nearby in danger or harm, that person should be barred from using such drugs in those specific locations or circumstances. This is essentially why we made drugs illegal. "People should simply be held liable for their actions." My opponent has made another foolish argument. He is now stating, that we should be concerned more about the liability than prevention. This is absurd, as anyone would understand that they would rather have prevented a situation rather than be compensated for it. Especially if it involves the loss of a loved one. "but this would not be punishable by law." Again, my opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never stated that the Government will punish the worker. "turns people into dangerous beasts" If by dangerous, you mean unpredictable, deranged and paranoid, then yes, it does. "only use their drugs in their own home." What about the streets. Parks. public locations which contain people, but are not under the jurisdiction of a specific property owner. Also, i disagree with how drug useage in your own home prevents harm to other people. Firstly, youre only alone in your home if you are a loner or a loser. Secondly, there is a door. You can walk through it. There are windows. You can jump through them. Now for my opponents contentions: 2. So would Child Pornography help the economy as well. Pass. 3. Again, so do child pornography holders thrown into jails as well. Its hurting the economy. However, illegal stuff are still illegal. Pass. ""Why can't we wear hats in school?" -wjmelements" Hats dont hurt anyone. No one goes on a killing spree because they were wearing a hat. Drugs do. People go on killing sprees all the time because they were under the influence of drugs. Let me ask you this, as a final question in this round. Who would you hold liable if a man who was high on cocaine, went into a public school, killed a dozen children and then proceeded to shoot himself? Sources: 1. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51. 2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of Intelligence: Theories, Measurements, and