BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prohibition funds crime

Prohibition of drugs leaves the supply of drugs to some of the worst people in society. There is a demand for drugs, under prohibition this is met by unregulated, uncontrollable criminals. So instead of being supplied by legitimate, tax paying companies drugs are supplied by some of the worst people in society. The profits go straight into funding foreign civil wars, buying guns that threaten our streets and funding extravagant lifestyles for criminal bosses. Instead of this we could have legitimate, tax paying, law abiding companies in control of the supply of drugs. This would be far better for the economy than leaving it to gangsters. A tiny minority of cigarettes and alcohol are bought on the black market. And when cigarettes are brought into this country, its usually by someone returning from a foreign trip to a country where the tax on cigarettes is lower. The tax has still been paid, just in a different country and at a lower rate. The proceeds going to legitimate sources, just in another country. The cigarettes people are buying are not homemade cigarettes but cigarettes made by international companies. That is totally different to what happens when it comes to illegal drugs. Existing suppliers of drugs could never hope to compete with legitimate companies. I would never buy a bottle of vodka made by some man i met on the street because i can go into a shop and buy a bottle of vodka from a producer i trust. People currently don't have that option with illegal drugs, under a legalized system they would have that option and would take it. Crime would decrease because we could liberate police officers from spending time fighting an unwinnable 'war on drugs' and refocus them on real crime like murder, rape, theft etc.
State's duty of care

Lots of legal things are harmful to society as a whole. If you are going to ban drugs because of a 'duty of care' then to be consistent you should ban unhealthy foods, alcohol, motorbikes, extreme sports, laziness. Adultery can ruin the lives of others, it can be very socially harmful. Shall we criminalize adultery? The state's duty of care would be far better carried out by ensuring that the quality of drugs is controlled, that legitimate companies rather than criminals make the profits, that taxes raised on drugs could fund rehab programs and printing warnings on the packaging of drugs so that people knew exactly what the risks are. None of that is possible when you leave drug dealers in control. The state is leaving its duty of care to drug dealers by choosing prohibition over regulation. No one doubts that drugs are harmful, but the criminal justice system isn't the way to solve the problems caused by drugs. The last 30yrs are ample evidence of that. The vast majority of drug users use them responsibly, just like the vast majority of alcohol drinkers drink responsibily. Millions of people take illegal drugs and don't commit crime, have a full time job and do other productive things with their life. Adults should be able to choose what they put in their body, the government's duty of care should not override the freedom of the invidual to make choices that hurt no one but themselves. The moment someone's drug taking causes them to be an unfit parent, become violent, become a thief etc then the state can get involved. Most drug users aren't drug addicts, so they don't need to be treated as such. Can anyone come up with a good reason to throw someone in jail because they smoke a bit of weed occassionally? Is jail the right place for them? Or are they better left alone to live their life as they are, harming no one?
Public health reasons

Our drugs problem is a public health problem and making it a criminal one has been part of the problem, definitely not a solution. If drugs were legalized they could be regulated for quality ensuring people do not die from taking a bad drug. They could be labelled as cigarettes are with public health warnings so that people know exactly what risk they are taking. Taxes on drugs could help pay for NHS run rehab programs. It would be easier to prevent underage drug taking if legitimate companies with licences to lose were put in control rather than drug dealers who have no problem selling to children, its the same crime as selling to an adult.
Prohibition doesn't work

There is no evidence to show that prohibition is succeeding. The question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the benefits of criminalising any drug?" If, after examining all the available evidence, we find that the costs outweigh the benefits, then we must seek an alternative policy. Legalisation is not a cure-all but it does allow us to address many of the problems associated with drug use, and those created by prohibition. The time has come for an effective and pragmatic drug policy. Prohibiton causes crime syndicates to flourish. If legalisation was to occur, crime groups would have one of their major sources of income cut off, thus lessening their negative impact on society. Police would be able to spend more time arresting much more dangerous criminals, such as rapists and murderers. Overall, prohibition causes more problems than it solves.
Address real issues

We do need to address these underlying causes, however this is not by legalising drugs- that is not helping to find out what drove the people to take drugs in the first place, it encourages their addiction; their sickness. We should develop better healthcare or stronger societies to reach out personally to these people and offer free consultations and counselling to help them back on their feet. Advertise, do what it takes, to make the new system well known and make people want to help themselves.
Caging people for possessing a drug is wrong

The harm created by addictive drugs isn't just to the person taking the drugs; drug addicts who can't finance their addiction will mug innocent members of the public in order to pay for their habit. It is not prison that ruins someone's life: it is the addiction itself, that drains their bank account, turns them to crime and ruins personal and family relationships they have. To protect the public, and to help prevent other harms, it is only right to continue the prohibition of drugs as it stands. Saying that drug A and drug B are legal, so all drugs should be, is a misnomer. There are plenty of legal 'drugs', largely for medicinal purposes. As for alcohol and nicotine, no one is suggesting that these are 'good' drugs. They too cause harm, but their continued legal status doesn't mean other harmful drugs should be legalised. When addicts commit a crime, they go away for that crime, so to say that "the real crime is mugging" means nothing. If they are found in possession of quantities of illegal materials, they go away for that; when caught mugging, they go away for that. Prison may not be perfect. Rehabilitation programmes should be better funded and more widely provided, yes, but just because they aren't at the moment doesn't mean drugs should be legalised. As for how many people take drugs: lots of respectable people (including George Washington) kept slaves but it never made it any more right. Such an appeal to authority is illogical. They should be afraid, because they are in positions of responsibility. Just as they would be fired if they were found to turn up to work drunk, so too should they not be encouraged to turn up rubbing their noses from snorting coke.
State's duty of care

The State has a duty of care to its citizens, demonstrated by its aggressive anti-smoking campaigns and legislation, and frequent advice regarding moderation of alcohol consumption. Drugs that are currently illegal are harmful to the end-user and society as a whole, through addiction and addiction-related crimes used to pay for substances. Substance abuse ruins the lives not just of users but their families and friends, and, when addicts commit crimes, the lives of their victims and victims' families. The State would be neglecting its very important duty of care to all its citizens if it didn't try and prevent them from taking such substances. While some people may be able to take drugs sensibly and in moderation, it is not possible to legislate for "some people". A blanket ban remaining in place is the fairest and most responsible course of action.
Race and Drugs

Then the legalisation of drugs is not the answer. You legalise drugs and even if you have this new law targeting black people more than white people in a motion of equality, the force of attention would be the legalisation and end of prohibition, and not the real focus which we want. If we feel that black people and other minorities are prejudiced by the criminal justice system and more likely to be imprisoned then we should amend the current law as it stands to make sure that the law changes to target the racism, and not the legalisation of drugs by going off on a tangent.
Caging people for possessing a drug is wrong

Putting someone in jail/fining them/giving them community service for possession of a drug is unjust, it should be their choice and not the government's what they put in their body. They are not harming anyone by mere possession, and putting them in jail at huge cost to the taxpayer ruins their life and costs us all. Sending someone to jail for drug posession is a waste of money as well as being unjust. We allow people to drink alcohol (a drug) and smoke nicotine (a drug) but we criminalize people who take some less harmful drugs. This inconsistenty is part of the injustice of criminalizing people for posession of certain drugs. No one disputes the harm done by drugs, the question is how to treat the problem. Decades of rising drug use and drug related crime demonstrate that prohibition doesn't work. The vast majority of drug users do not committ other crimes to pay for their drugs. The real crime is the mugging, not the activity they are trying to pay for. People steal to buy all kinds of things, but it is the theft that should be the crime. Many drug addicts committ crime to feed their habit, but not every drug user is a drug addict. Millions of people take illegal drugs including many lawyers, teachers, doctors etc. They lead productive lives, why should the threat of jail hang over them because the government disagrees with their choice of drug? Prison does ruin someone's life, and it certainly does nothing to cure addiction. It makes it more likely that people will be dependent on drugs for the forseeable future as they have hardly any chance of getting a decent job with a criminal record. The public are not protected. Drugs are everywhere, dangerous drug dealers are common, drug related crime soars and so does drug addiction. That is prohibition. Would anyone think that the solution to our alcohol problem is to jail anyone who has a drink? Probably not. No most people think that rehab is the answer for alcoholics and that moderate drinkers should be largely left alone until they break some other law. So why do people think that for other drugs, some less dangerous than alcohol, the answer is criminal penalities? Even when the idea of treating drug addiction as a criminal problem has been tested to destruction and shown to be a complete failure. Keeping slaves violates the rights of others to live their life as they choose, its nothing like taking a drug. It is the prohibition on drugs that violates the rights of others, not the drug taking itself. Drinking alcohol isn't morally superior to taking illegal drugs just because the government has a hypocritical, inconsistent policy on drugs.
Legalisation would not stop drug crime

Much of the "Yes" case on this point relies on an assessment of harms- particularly, on the analysis that since the primary harms of drug use are to the individual, the state has no role: "Adults should be able to choose what they put in their body, the government’s duty of care should not override the freedom of the individual to make choices that hurt no one but themselves." This point, however, fails to take into account the reason why drugs have continued to be restricted. While heroin or crack cocaine addiction initially harms the user's health, it also has wider social implications: as addiction spirals out of control, the addict has to spend greater amounts on buying the drug, and often turns to crime to fund this. Theft and prostitution are common offences among drug addicts, and cost society dearly in financial terms and in the threats they pose to personal safety and freedoms. The "yes" case also suggests that , through legalising drugs, legitimate business organisations which take over the industry, allowing government to tax drug supply and therefore use the funds to finance rehabilitation. However, this is an unrealistic assumption on two grounds: firstly, because respectable businesses would be unwilling to openly supply products to which are attached a social stigma and various associated risks, and because the roots of drug supply would still be controlled in countries such as Colombia and Afghanistan by hostile militant groups; and secondly, because any legal industry has substantially higher production and development costs, and therefore higher prices, to which government taxes are added, the price of drugs would soar. This would force drug addicts either to continue using illegal sources, or to fund their now more expensive habit through further use of crime.
Race and Drugs

Black people are over ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug offences than whites. Arrests for drug offences are notoriously discretionary allowing enforcement to easily target a particular ethnic group. Prohibition has fostered this stereotyping of black people. Legalisation removes a whole set of laws that are used to disproportionately bring black people into contact with the criminal justice system. It would help to redress the over representation of black drug offenders in prison.
Drug users are the majority

Recent research shows that nearly half of all 15-16 year olds have used an illegal drug. Up to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. Amongst young people, illegal drug use is seen as normal. Intensifying the 'war on drugs' is not reducing demand. In Holland, where cannabis laws are far less harsh, drug usage is amongst the lowest in Europe. Legalisation accepts that drug use is normal and that it is a social issue, not a criminal justice one. How we deal with it is up to all of us to decide. In 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offences and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work. Most people who drink alcohol are not abusers and can control their drinking. It is unfair to assume all drug users are addicts that need help.
Prohibition funds crime

When people say they want to legalize drugs they usually say it would make lawabiding citizens and a chance for the state to tax the industry but it is a little naive to think that the cartels and the dealers will just simply give up such a profitable business. There already exists a black market for cigarettes that funds crime by offering tobacco products cheaper than market prices - i.e. by-passing taxes - and there is already a network of producers and suppliers of illegal drugs. Legalising and taxing them would not suddenly destroy this market, especially since it is easier to produce such drugs than cigarettes. The black market would, indeed, thrive, because it would become more socially acceptable to take such substances, and there would be a convenient, cheap way of getting them as opposed to government-regulated and taxed outlets. So, funding for crime would increase. Moreover, drugs destroy people, tear families apart and leads to violence. Not just as a means of funding an addiction but some drugs make people more violent. You could argue that alcohol does the same and that cigarettes also kill but drugs do so even more. Even though the current system might not be perfect, legalizing drugs would make it worse.
Schools and teachers are very expensive (often using up to 10% of all the money governments spend). ...

Governments would find it impossible to decide how much to spend on schools each year if they didn’t know how many students would be attending. This could lead to more wasted money, or shortages if too few or too many students chose to go to school. Also, children cannot just be allowed to roam the streets by themselves all day. This means that some parents would have to leave their jobs in order to be with the children (which would harm them and the economy). Maybe the children would be forced to go to some other place for supervision. If this happens then they might as well be at school.
Many students enjoy and benefit from school, and it is important that schools exist. But for some s...

Many students enjoy and benefit from school, and it is important that schools exist. But for some students the experience is not so good. Some may be seriously bullied; others may struggle with learning or simply find it boring. Some students may just resent being told what to do with their lives. It cannot be right to force children into a place which causes them so much fear or frustration.
Schools teach everyone the same knowledge, but children are all very different and ‘one size doesn’t...

Schools teach everyone the same knowledge, but children are all very different and ‘one size doesn’t fit all’. The lessons and subjects at school are often not necessary for children to be successful when they are older. For example, very few adults do jobs based on history, or art or geography. Children can still learn if they are in charge of their own lives, but instead they can just learn what they need to know or what interests them. This is much more efficient and sensible, especially with internet connections in almost every home to give them access to all the information they need.
There are many other ways to learn ‘lessons’ from life. Young people can learn from parents or fami...

There are many other ways to learn ‘lessons’ from life. Young people can learn from parents or family members, or do apprenticeships to learn a particular skill. Often, practical knowledge is much more useful than ‘academic’ book knowledge. There are many examples of famous people (such as Richard Branson) who left school at the earliest opportunity but still managed to be far more successful than people who stayed at school much longer.
It is not the job of the Government to tell people what a good or successful life is. If a young pe...

It is not the job of the Government to tell people what a good or successful life is. If a young person is happy to spend their time on hobbies or with friends, and if they don’t mind having more difficulties with work when they are older, then that is their choice. Many people who spend their lives constantly studying and working end up being lonely, unhappy and worn out. Who is to say that this is a better life?
Schools and teachers are very expensive (often using up to 10% of all the money governments spend). ...

Schools and teachers are very expensive (often using up to 10% of all the money governments spend). This money is wasted when it is spent on children who don’t want to learn, or worse, cause trouble at school and make life harder for other students. Having to provide fewer school places would save a good deal of money, and make schools even more effective for the students who choose to go.
Many students enjoy and benefit from school, and it is important that schools exist. But for some s...

Schools can and must do more to tackle issues like bullying, and students with learning difficulties. But the children affected by these issues are the ones who need more help, not less. In many cases just one good teacher or subject can change the way a student feels about school and learning. If we let children walk away at the first problems, many students who could have been happy at school will never get the chance.
Children know their own feelings best. Parents and teachers can never fully understand how young pe...

The views of children do matter, but in many cases society is right to leave the decisions to others. Parents and teachers have a lot of experience of life after school, and they are far better placed to make decisions about the future. Many children simply can’t understand all of the consequences of their actions. This is exactly why we don’t punish them as severely as adults when they make mistakes. Children also change their minds and may make decisions they regret later.
Schools teach everyone the same knowledge, but children are all very different and ‘one size doesn’t...

Schools don’t just teach ‘information’, but try to give students a basic understanding of the world around them. How can students decide what subjects interest them if they don’t understand them? And even if students can find jobs when they are older, it is still important that they understand basic ideas about how society works, about their history or about basic science. Schooling creates well-rounded young people who understand their place in the society and the world. This won’t happen if students only learn what they need to get by.
There are many other ways to learn ‘lessons’ from life. Young people can learn from parents or fami...

It is easy to focus on famous people who left school early, because we have all heard of them. We never hear about the majority of people who quit school and then struggle for the rest of their lives. This is a far more likely outcome though. Also, in the modern world it is far harder to learn one skill and stay with that choice for a lifetime. People today change careers an average of four times in their lives. Children who learn a wider range of skills will have a better chance of moving between jobs when they are older than someone with just basic knowledge in one or a few areas.
It is not the job of the Government to tell people what a good or successful life is. If a young pe...

Some people may live happily without schooling, but the Government also has to take care of those who cannot find jobs, or need help with things like housing or financial support. These services are expensive, and force everyone in society to pay more taxes. Therefore it is fair for the Government to try and avoid these costs by making schooling compulsory. Governments may force children to study at first, but in the long run they increase the choices of people – by giving them more skills and options for their lives.
It is controversial even to regard flag burning as an example of free speech. First, the law cannot...

It is controversial even to regard flag burning as an example of free speech. First, the law cannot label and protect a limitless variety of conduct as ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. Only reckless or accidental acts are not intended by the actor to have a certain effect. Second, from the theories of John Milton and J. S. Mill we have recognised that the purpose of free speech protection is the advancement of knowledge or truth. The US Supreme Court has developed these theories through regularly using the metaphor of the 'marketplace of ideas'. Free speech allows the value and accuracy of different ideas to be publicly discussed, rejected, accepted or developed. Yet, flag burning does not contribute to any dialogue or exchange of ideas. It is the opposite of calm and rational debate.