Drug Prohibition in the United States

Although the first sentence of my argument stated that the 'War on Drugs' is immoral and illogical, that is not the intended premise. It was only my opening argument. I was intending to debate whether or not the United States should continue drug prohibition. I apologize it that wasn't very clear. 1) I still hold that the 'War on Drugs' is completely immoral. I'll use a slightly different definition of morals: morals are basic guidelines for behavior intended to reduce suffering in living populations. Immorality is assumed to be anything that would either fail to reduce or increase suffering. I don't question the motives of the current drug prohibition activists, they are only trying to help people by keeping them off of drugs. But, their positive intentions do not make up for creating a dangerous black market that has ruined many lives including entire communities. Since the net effect of drug prohibition increases suffering among populations of the United States, especially urban neighborhoods, it is immoral, despite good intentions. 2) I still hold that the 'War on Drugs' is irrational. //The definition of ‘irrational' is, "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason." The definition of ‘reason' is, "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event."// With the broad definition of irrational my opponent used, anything could be considered rational because it does not take into account faulty reasoning. For instance, A person could draw the conclusion that the sun is made out of cheese, because it is yellow like cheese. That person, according to this definition of irrational, did not act irrationally because he had a reason, or a basis or cause, to draw the conclusion. The fact that he used faulty reasoning and drew a terribly wrong conclusion isn't considered. Common sense would tell anybody that he is not using rational logic by drawing his conclusion. A better definition would be: lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence With this new definition, The cheese man is not using rational logic because he is not using normal mental clarity. I have redefined irrational to suit my understanding of the word, and have already explained why drug prohibition is irrational with the 3rd-6th paragraphs of my first argument. 3) Waste: to spend or use carelessly : squander Considering the 'War on Drugs' is a failed policy, (already discussed in my first argument) every dollar spent should be considered careless. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- //Cigarette use decreasing can't be contributed to an end to advertising to children, correlation does not mean causation.// Point taken. Cigarette companies' advertising techniques may have had little or nothing to do with the decrease in cigarette consumption. Nevertheless, whatever the reason(s), it has been extremely successful because cigarette consumption has decreased significantly. Notice though, that this decrease was not caused by prohibition; therefore there are other ways to limit drug use without the unintended consequences of prohibition. Also, it can be assumed that altered advertising strategies, at a minimum at least, did not contribute to cigarette use and it only makes logical sense that it decreased cigarette use, although it can't be PROVEN with the stats provided. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- //Recently cigarettes have been well know to cause cancer and be very unhealthy.....I could just as equally argue that that is the cause of decrease in cigarette use not less advertising.// Again, point taken. I could, and did in my first argument, make same argument for lower drug use with regards to health effects and illegality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- //Drug dealers whoa re in jail can't distribute or sell drugs.// Drug dealers are just pawns in the game. There have been millions of drug dealers arrested throughout the duration of the drug war, but still there are drugs on the street simply because when one drug dealer is busted another one fills in. There are infinite amounts of poor people, especially in poor economies, who can't find jobs and are willing to do anything for money. Since they can't earn money any other way, they deal drugs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ //The black market would still be there to provide children with drugs.// Yes, but the incentives would be much less. In the case of the black market for drugs, the incentives to sell to children outweigh the decentives. In fact, there really isn't any decentive to sell to children because everyone is illegal in the same. Perhaps the punishment may be worse for selling to children, but I highly doubt that is a consideration to a drug dealer. In the current case for cigarettes and alcohol the decentives to sell or provide to children outweigh the incentives. There isn't much money to be made by selling beer or cigarettes to kids, but it could cost a person thousands of dollars and possibly jail time.