Question: Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement

Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011

Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.”[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies. [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011, http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the "ill-informed" pubic.

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: Hope my opponent shows up eventually.

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: Extend all my arguments.

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Creating a mentality of illness

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the "diagnosis" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their "patients" to have serious medical problems -Thank you

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I extend all of my arguments. -Thank you

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system

Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

Title: Creating a mentality of illness Content: Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand. In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert. [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products. [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2]. “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/

Title: It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. Content: Taxing one product, such as recreational drugs, differently than another product, such as prescription drugs, places an unfair burden on one segment of consumers. It could be claimed that drug users have the right to not pay the tax simply by not purchasing the drugs, but this gets away from the fact that citizens should be treated equally under the law. People have the right to choose what they consume. The use of taxes to control behaviour is wrong and it is not the role of the government to decide how its citizens should behave. It is for the citizens to decide what acceptable behaviour is and for the government to implement those limitations while also not restricting basic rights. It is also important to note that imbalanced taxes show favouritism to one segment of producers vs. another. Naturally, people favour less expensive products over more expensive ones, which means that government can create unnatural market conditions that favour products that are taxed less.

Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.

Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full

Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: 1) the reason Tylenol doesn't need a prescription is because it is a safe drug whereas other medicines, including antibiotics, may have consequences depending on medical history or other drugs you are taking. .. . 2) I'm not citing the FDA there I read their mission statement which jut says what their job is. .. . And that doesn't dismiss how your site "The FDA Kills" isn't less biased. .. As for the "Consumer reports" that could replace the FDA, these small independent groups have not nearly enough influence, manpower, or funding to label, test, inspect, approve, and remove medical drugs on and off the market that the FDA does. .. Replacing the FDA with consumer reports would be similar to replacing the US Navy with armed fishing boats. .. Furthermore it is not my fault that the definition of drug is too vague for your standards, next time you should offer your own definition of what a drug is rather than just pay a meaningless opinion. .. As for the Cheerios argument, Cheerios are only classified as a drug, nothing else though has been done by the FDA. You can still buy them anywhere and they are not regulated by the FDa in anyway because last I checked you don't need a prescription to buy a box of them. .. A biased source is any source that gives a very unbalanced and slanted account of facts to imply any opinion over a matter that isn't true. The article you gave does exactly that. 3) if you think the FDA is slow to respond in removing a drug in one case where in other cases they acted rather fast in removing harmful drugs off the market other times then that debunks this argument. But I would like to add that since only the FDA can remove harmful drugs from the market then whether they do it fast enough to satisfy your demands wouldn't matter since they would still be protecting consumers from a harmful drug since they removed it from the market. .. As for your interview it seems that Dr Graham failed to acknowledge how the FDA protects consumers by labeling ingredients in drugs, requiring certain drugs to be accessible only if a doctor prescribes them, and prevents and removes many harmful drugs from the market at all. .. His biased rant against the FDA may be due to the fact that he was Simply over-critical of the performance of the FDa over a particular incident. Many people within the FAA thought the agency could have helped prevent 9/11, does that mean it should be abolished completely? No, because like the FDA it still serves a valuable and important service. .. 4) The Pro admits the FDA encourages drug companies to create safer drugs even without regulations. .. As for the number of drugs removed in 1980 then found onthe market in 1990, they could have very well been studied closer, reengineered, and limited to a more narrow client base to ensure safety. .. Some drugs may be harmful to some people but may also be completely harmless to others. .. As for the rest of his argument, The FDA can be occasionally slow or non productive, but you cant simply do away with it for the following reasons 1) the alleged costs drug companies face these days are not entirely due to FDA regulations, it could come from salaries, equipment fees, research, etc that could cost millions that are needed just to create a drug, not to make it meet standards 2) the pro wants to rely completely on independent, uncoordinated research institutes to do the FDAs job instead, but all of these independent institutes lack the manpower and funding to come even close to the productivity the FDA puts out 3) the regulations they impose are proven to protect consumers and the PRO annoy deny that. 4) the only reason the Pro wants to eliminate the FDA is because it harms the profits of a few dozen drug companies for the protection of hundreds of millions of people. .. 5) Most importantly, see number 3. ..

Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheeriosï¿½ is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be ‘used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for ‘safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between ‘drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.

Title: Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits Content: Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].

Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea. [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011

Title: Buy Generic Medicines Online Content: How I Can Buy Generic Medicines Online? Buy Generic Medicines Online from our extensive online store of prescription and OTC drugs. Save big on prescription drugs and get them delivered direct to your home. Alldaygeneric.com is America’s only Verified Online Pharmacy Store and accredited online and mail-order pharmacy licensed and/or authorized in all 50 states, headquartered in the Cincinnati metropolitan area. We are focused on the growing out of pocket prescription market, with a mission to provide affordable healthcare to every American. We take pride in providing customers with personalized service. Our highly skilled teams of professional provide highest quality of care when customers need it most. All our products, prescription drugs and over-the-counter items, are FDA approved and legal for sale in the United States. In addition to human medications, we also carry medications you’ll find at your veterinarian’s office. Our Pharmacy Team We employ a team of highly educated, well trained pharmacists (RPh and/or PharmD) with over 90 years of clinical experience. Our pharmacists are devoted to helping patients achieve the highest quality of life through medication, counseling, education and adherence to the latest pharmacology standards. Additionally, we have a talented team of pharmacy technicians and customer service representatives dedicated to meeting the needs of our customers. All of our customer service representatives are licensed through the Kentucky Board of Pharmacy. Through a unified effort, our team works closely with customers and their physician(s) to ensure exceptional patient safety, patient care, and compassionate service. How We Save You Money With our focus on technology and sourcing, we are able to remove layers of cost between the manufacturer and the customer. Our proprietary software allows us to process prescription and over-the-counter products efficiently and cost effectively. We aren’t burdened with substantial overhead costs of traditional retail pharmacy chains, nor the requirement to artificially keep prescription drug costs higher in order to maintain insurance reimbursements. Therefore, we are able to keep our costs low, and pass along the savings to our valued customers. Alldaygeneric is a leading online pharmacy website that provides thousands of drugs and over the counter products at savings of up to 80% or more. You can find brand name medications as well as generic drugs and order through our secure website 24 hours a day or toll-free over the phone 7 days a week. Enjoy wholesale prices and the convenience of home delivery. In 2001 Kris Jack founded Alldaygeneric in response to the rising costs of prescription medication. Many American seniors in the late '90s were taking organized bus trips across the border to purchase more affordable medication from an Alldaygeneric. Online pharmacies, like Alldaygeneric were created to help more people take advantage of the price savings available in United State by bringing the savings right to them over their computer or phone line. In the decade since Kristina Mary filled his first online order, Alldaygeneric has grown to employ hundreds of staff out of its head office in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and together with its licensed international partner pharmacies, Alldaygeneric has filled 7 million discount prescription orders for customers all over the world. Alldaygeneric is the largest and most trusted international mail order provider and is the global leader in prescription drug savings. Alldaygeneric is committed to offering its customers the very best prices on the best brand and generic medication from USA, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. This commitment to savings is matched by our commitment to providing the best service and pharmacy care in the industry. No other online pharmacy can match our level of customer service, and industry-only polices like Order Base free shipping on every order, price guarantees, and a hassle-free return policy and a referral rewards program that earns every singles, Alldaygeneric customer money for simply telling friends and family what they save when they order from us. Leading the way, Alldaygeneric has established us as innovators, shaping the online pharmacy industry's future. Our commitment to the growth and credibility of our industry involves participating in many associations, including the Manitoba International Pharmacists Association (MIPA) and PharmacyChecker. Through these groups and the personal involvement of Kris Thorkelson, we are working to ensure our customers have access to safe, affordable and quality medication from licensed online ADG. We're proud of the organization we have built here at Alldaygeneric, the patients who invite us into their homes through the medications we provide, and the services that we offer to our customers. We will never compromise on offering the best value, service and care to each and every one of our customers. Alldaygeneric is committed to providing affordable medications to all of our customers, and we do so by sourcing our medicines from around the world, where pricing regulations often keep the cost of medicines lower than at your local pharmacy. We only work with a small network of trusted and reputable international pharmacies and fulfillment centers, giving you access to authentic medications at low prices every day. Alldaygeneric is also a certified member of the Canadian International Pharmacy Association and the International Pharmacy Association of FDA. Alldaygeneric is also verified by Trust Guard. You can review each of these certifications by clicking on the various seals on our website to learn more. Alldaygeneric is proud to have a five-star customer satisfaction rating through Shopper Approved. With over 250,000 customer reviews and ratings, we are the most independently five-star rated online pharmacy service in the world. All of our customer feedback is publicly available, and none of it can be altered by us, giving you a genuine and unbiased look at our service. See for yourself why thousands of people rely on us to provide the medications and health care products they need, and order from Alldaygeneric today. Visit Now:https://www.alldaygeneric.com... https://www.facebook.com... https://twitter.com... https://plus.google.com... https://www.pinterest.com...

Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on. Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.

Title: Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency Content: The sale of generic drugs invariably reduces costs to consumers. This is due to two reasons. It may be the case that an individual or firm with a patent, essentially a monopoly right to the production of something, may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Patents slow, or even stop the dissemination of the production methods, especially when a patent-holder is unwilling to license production to others1. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with no restrictions on drug production an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public, producing an amount of drugs commensurate with demand, and thus equilibrating market price with that demand2. This market equilibration is impossible under conventional patent laws, as it is in the interest of firms to withhold production and to engage in monopolist rent-seeking from consumers3. This leads firms to deliberately under-produce, which they have been shown to do in many cases, as for example the case of Miacalcic, a drug used to treat Paget's Disease, in which its producer deliberately kept production down in order to keep prices high4. When a firm is given monopoly power over a drug it has the ability to abuse it, and history shows that is what they are wont to do. By allowing the production of generic drugs, this monopoly power is broken and people can get the drugs they need at costs that are not marked far above their free market value. 1 Kinsella, Stephan. 2010. "Patents Kill: Compulsory Licenses and Genzyme's Life-Saving Drug". Mises Institute. Available: 2Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 3 Lee, Timothy. 2007. "Patent Rent-Seeking". Cato at Liberty. Available: 4 Flanders Today. 2010. "Big Pharma Denies Strategic Shortages". Flanders Today.

Title: Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers Content: Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D[1]. They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’

Title: Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers Content: The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

Title: drugs should not be banned Content: My opponent should’ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a ‘drug’, which eliminates the idea for it to get ’banned’ or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn’t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone’s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of ‘drugs’. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste ‘freedom’, which could eventually kill them. Well, here’s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher’s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person’s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.

Title: Drug Legalization Content: Okay, I think I'm getting mixed messages here. Oh, well. My opponent thinks I want to rid the U. S. of the FDA. As great as that would be, I know that the FDA is necessary. I'm not arguing against the FDA. I'm arguing against the FDA's plan, which involves banning all drugs if they don't see them fit for use. Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad? Although visits to doctors for proper prescriptions should be encouraged, it should not be required. People should read the labels. The people at the counter who sell the drugs should be required to inform the consumer to read the labels, and ask their doctor any questions pertaining to any drugs. That would be informed consent. I think that the FDA should change its plan. It should require things on labels, but other than that, it should be able to ban things outright. If people are told to read the labels upon or prior to purchase, we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug. Of course, nobody is going to want to use an untested drug, and nobody is going to want to re-label said drugs once they've been tested, so the free market would naturally prevent itself from selling untested drugs. Read the labels on your drugs. Seriously. You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them. If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead. That boosts the economy. And not all homeless people are druggies. "Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so don[']t try and comment on it. " No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment. The option to use drugs is natural, and government restrictions are unnatural. We don't kill off the disabled, and we don't kill off druggies. We let nature take its natural toll. If they can survive, then by all means, they survived. "Congratulations. Now you[']ve lost. First off, [s]uicide is not a trait that is inhereted[sic]. And neither is stupidity. " We don't know that there is no suicide gene, caused by a mutation in a potential gene that triggers the will to survive. There are bound to be genetic traits that increase the chance of becoming an addict, and these traits would be quickly eliminated. And intelligence is largely based in genetics [1]. "Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. " If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would. My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal. This is false. That power is reserved for government. However, companies can write rules against the use of drugs, which their employees must abide by, but this would not be punishable by law. It would be punishable by a loss of job. Completely different. My opponent thinks that drug use instantly turns people into dangerous beasts. People should simply be held liable for their actions. Also, don't forget that I put a clause in defining this debate so that the government can ban drug use in certain buildings (schools, for obvious reasons) and people can ban drug use on their own property. So, a person can probably only use their drugs in their own home. They can't really harm anybody else at that point. Now, for more contentions: 2. Drug Legalization would help the economy. Obviously, this would create jobs, and increase participation in the medical market. Drug Legalization can only help the economy. 3. It just throws people in jail. The police lock up people for possessing illegal drugs. They pile up in jails, unable to do anything productive, hurting the economy. However, they often only use it themselves, with no supplying to minors, so there's really nothing good in throwing people in jail. "Why can't we wear hats in school? " -wjmelements [2] "Because it's against the rules. "- The Government 1. . http://www.scq.ubc.ca... 2. . http://www.debate.org...

Title: Drug Commercials Content: I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.

Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.

Title: All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults. Content: I disagree. In fact, I think that all drugs should be illegal, except for prescription drugs/drugs used by hospitals to treat patients.

Title: End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal. Content: In my opponents argument, he said that although being physically dependent on a drug is bad, it shouldn't be criminalized. This I agree with. No consumer of a drug should be criminalized and it should be considered a medical issue - of addiction and dependence. Those selling, growing and distributing that drug though, should be criminalized. If it were legal, as the proposition says, then it would only take one try of that drug to become addicted - or frequent use will have the same effect. To per-empt, that physical addiction and spare many the painful steps of withdrawal, it should be banned from being sold. Now, my position is that no-one should be criminally prosecuted for taking drugs. Instead they should be offered medical help. For those drugs that are too addictive, it should be stopped from being sold (or at least be changed and regulated to make it less addictive). Think about it this way. If a product doesn't fit with food/drink/drug regulations to make them safer and less addictive, then it can't be sold and is as such "illegal". Why should drugs be any different. If some drugs are too dangerous or addictive and it fails to be regulated to change that, then it shouldn't be sold and should be "illegal". Therefore, to argue that all drugs should be legal to consume, you are therefore arguing that there would be no regulation. If you tried to regulate it, some drugs will still not be allowed to be sold and go into the black-market, making it illegal. For all drugs therefore to be legal all regulation on medical, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs would have to be taken away. Not everything can be legal. Are companies allowed to put anything they want into our food or medical drugs? No, and rightly so. Some drugs and food do not meet our regulations and are illegal. This shouldn't change.

Title: Drug Commercials Content: There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.

Title: Restrictions reach out to the general population Content: How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) Through marketing/advertising, comes interest from the viewers, causing them to buy the product. If the government could get a good amount of advertising, there would be a surplus of customers. 1b) Regulation would be somewhat easier if the drugs were sold in orderly and recordable pharmacies. Thus, regulating the drug trade would not be much harder than regulating and inspecting the condition and distribution of food, for example. 2a) By granting these criminals amnesty, it will be easier for them to find some sort of job. There would be no record of criminal activity (at least regarding first-time felons) to be held against them. 2b) As for the role of certain drugs in the commitment of crimes, this can be handled by keeping a record of how much of that drug one person owns, and setting a limit on it. For example, there would be a limit on the amount of ecstasy that could be purchased at one time, and if your record states that you already have an amount of this drug that would exceed the limit, you would not be allowed to buy it. You would also need to show a signed from that states the police inspected your home to make sure you don't have that drug. In addition, consider these scenarios from: http://www.taxfoundation.org... In this scenario, which is very common and could be considered the average amount of customers from one dealer, the drug dealer makes more money than the average worker. If you put a tax on that, it is very possible that whatever money lost through fundraising, rehabilitation, lawsuits, etc. could be gained back. I stated that the risk was worth taking because it is. The reason being, any financial hole that is caused by legalizing drugs can be fixed and replenished, and would make the government billions of dollars. Why vote pro: 1. Government income would skyrocket. 2. The crime rate related to drugs would decrease with the proper support (regulation). 3. Most, if not all, of the problems encountered can be solved fairly quickly.

Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Drug patent time limits are defined as the 15 years given to the inventor or developer of a prescription drug to have exclusive rights to selling and distributing the drug without having to compete with generic brands of their product. This allows prescription drug manufacturers to artificially raise prices, slow down the process of research and development, and to eliminate all competition for an overly extended period of time. Drug patent time limits are benefical in allowing drug producers to be rewarded and compensated for their research in developing new medicines, however, by allowing an overly extended amount of time, it is slowing down the progression of modern medicine and defeating American capitalism through excessive regulation. In a capitalist society, the government should only regulate to the point where there is an incentive to produce. That point lies where the firm initially begins to earn economic profits. A perfectly competitive industry allows other companies to enter the industry at this point. At this point there are only variable costs and the costs of production should be equal between corporations. Now the firms may ablely compete for the purchasing powers of its citizens. The fatally flawed drug patent hinders this from happening. The affirmative proposes a system that will oppose the Con's case supporting the status quo: 7 years would be alloted as a drug patent, with the normal abilities of extension being available to the corporation. The average extension ranges from 5 to 7 years, giving a total estimated patent to the pharmaceutical corporation of 12-14 years, in comparison to the 25-27 years that you are defending. The appeals process, which is legal and cannot be banned without being in contradiction of many standing laws, is a permanent fixture in the system. The drug patents lead the consumer to believe that, due to its excessive period of exclusive rights, that generic drugs are inferior to their original drug, while they are in fact the exact same product. Allowing for the abuse of the drug patent system while corporations continue to amount massive profits is monopolistic and unhealthy for both the American economy and the future of American medicine and pharmaceuticals. Modern American capitalism with government regulation holds anti-trust laws that prevent patents from being absolute. If the best drug is to survive, then it is with respect to generic drugs. However, generic drugs are equal to the original drug, so the competition playing field is relatively equal. A National Center for Policy Analysis study criticized this corporate splurging, and cited that less than 1/3 of profits are spent towards research in development, in comparison to over 50% on advertisement during the original time of the patent. However, during the last 3 years of the drug's exclusive rights overall, the corporation actually increases its advertising spending heading in to the surfacing of generic drugs. In terms of the incentives for the Affirmative's plan, the incentive to create lies in the company's ability to maximize profits over a period of time, but making this period of time shorter would not act as a disincentive. Even after the profit maximization, they still hold the upperhand in the opinion of the consumers and usually tend to charge more than the generic drugs will charge, despite the bioequivalency of the two drugs and the equally similar costs of production. An economic incentive is given even if the drug manufacturer is given a few months to exclusively market and sell its drug. Thanks, The Colonel

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Where pro states "Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world. " "New" may be ambiguous in the pharmaceutical world. I ask to strike that word alone, and if necessary further define in context of the debate.

Title: Better targeted advertising benefits consumers Content: Even if the services advertised are effective in providing services that may interest them, the fundamental violation of privacy entailed in compiling personal search data is too serious a danger to people than the fleeting benefits that this sort of advertising might furnish. But this form of advertising is often not as effective, since its reliance on programmes that stereotype demographics can often result in misallocation of advertising. Furthermore, the discomfort people feel at this advertising means they do not like experiencing it, useful or not.

Title: Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal. Content: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin It would appear as if Con wishes to criminalize MDMA, tobacco and marijuana based on one factor alone: It is potentially harmful to consumers. I have submitted to the reality that these drugs, when abused, can lead to health risks that may harm an individual. However, my stance in this debate has been that the risk of losing the essential liberties and freedom that this country was founded upon poses an even greater risk to society. Moreover, as I've already pointed out thus far in the debate, legalizing or decriminalizing these drugs has various benefits including but not limited to positive medical use; personal satisfaction; cost benefits and efforts towards implementing a more democratic and fair government. In the Comment Section of this debate, my opponent asked me what I thought the purpose of government was. Again, I maintain that the government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man - the document that spurred the American Revolution - notes that liberty is granting people the freedom to do anything they please so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence, notes in his infamous document that people have the right to pursue happiness. Perhaps what many people don't know is that in its original draft, Jefferson's wording originally stated that people had the right to pursue property (but later changed it because 'happiness' sounded better). My point here is that one's self belongs to them and them alone; you are your own property. So, if one wishes to pollute their body with toxins or other substances - even if it has detrimental effects - one has the right to do that regardless of the personal consequences. For instance, if I wanted to throw a party and trash your house, I couldn't because that would be a violation of your property i.e. your rights. However, if I wanted to throw a party and trash MY house, that would be perfectly within my right to do so, and to prohibit me from exhausting this right is actually a violation of my rights. This is the real issue at hand. I could spend countless amounts of characters illustrating why Con's statistics - especially regarding marijuana and MDMA - are HIGHLY manipulated and inaccurate! For instance, the notion that smoking pot could actually induce schizophrenia on an individual is ludicrous. Do you know how much pot you'd have to smoke in order to have serious harmful effects?! The reality is that schizophrenia is a mental illness caused by biological factors, genetics and chemicals in the brain that have nothing to do with marijuana. In fact, my source notes that these so-called studies making these ridiculous claims were FALSE and notes: "Empirical data did not support the investigators' hypothesis that smoking marijuana was associated with increased rates of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses among the general public — a fact that even the authors begrudgingly admitted when they declared, 'Projected trends for schizophrenia incidence have not paralleled trends in cannabis use over time.' The expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and incidence of psychotic disorders. … This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence" [1]. Similarly, Con has completely misrepresented the so-called facts about MDMA that he provided in the previous rounds. In reading up on HIS OWN SOURCES, here's what I've found: 1. Based on a review of the social and health harms of ecstasy, the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) recommends that the government reclassify the drug from Class A to Class B... In other words, research shows that MDMA's potential harm or threat should be LOWER than what was previously considered. 2. By repeating the tests administered to ecstasy users, researchers found SUBTLE changes to cell architecture and decreased blood flow in some brain regions. 3. Any "brain damage" caused by MDMA is almost insignificant, AND, research does not prove its permanent! Again, I found these facts from checking up on Con's own sources (At least I won one point in this debate!). I won't cite them for lack of character space, but they're under MDMA in his R2 argument. That said, I won't bother wasting more space discussing the other harms that these drugs and tobacco may cause. Instead, I'll re-visit my point that the so-called dangers of these drugs are often exaggerated in an attempt to promote a socially conservative agenda, and to gain popular support for the politicians who make laws. Remember that the government isn't a perfect, all-knowing entity; it is a system based on the CONCEPT of liberty and composed of flawed individuals who do not always do the right thing. Thomas Jefferson once said, "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Con notes that the government should not fear the people; that doing so would enable a mob mentality and instead that there should be mutual respect between the two. However, the government is COMPOSED of the people (i.e. democracy), and its supposed to protect them - their rights and wants. As we can see, people like to experiment with recreational drugs in America. First it was peyote. Then tobacco (many farmers still make their living off this product). Next, hash and marijuana. Alcohol. Etc. Con writes, "It could easily be argued by me that, because tobacco carries a definite risk of self-harm, jeopardizing both life and all subsequent rights, that these current legal standards ought to be repealed." Oh? I encourage Con to attempt at arguing that tobacco should become illegal. The reality is that this would NEVER be acceptable; remember what happened during Prohibition when the government attempted to outlaw alcohol? What became known as the "Noble Experiment' failed miserably. Instead, it increased gang membership and violence significantly (see: Al Capone) and the people simply did not tolerate it. There are about 45 million people who smoke cigarettes in the U.S. Con would have the burden of proving that the government has the right to outlaw anything that causes self-harm, instead of honoring the individual liberties of the people - the same liberties that this country was founded on. Con also says, "Pro never gives us any legitimate reason to impose these standards on MDMA and tobacco beyond expansion of the status quo over other drugs." I don't really understand this assertion. My point was that just as there are laws to outlaw second-hand tobacco smoke (so people don't suffer as a result of other people's choices), the same should apply to marijuana smoke. And obviously, anyone who wishes to refrain from taking MDMA will do so. Additionally, Con is right in stating that alcohol consumption is irrelevant to this debate. However, what IS relevant to this debate are the context of the laws and what ought to be legal or ought not to be legal. My point is that just as alcohol can be dangerous and remains legal, so too can (and should) other things including - BUT NOT LIMITED TO - alcohol consumption, sun bathing, pollutants, stress, lack of sleep, etc. I'm out of character space for now, but as I've pointed out, liberty should trump potential harm! Con has yet to explain or prove otherwise. Furthermore, there ARE indisputable benefits to these drugs - including medical and costs - which in consideration with others I've mentioned in R2 make my advocacy for legalization still stand. Source: [1] http://mentalhealth.about.com...

Title: The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. Content: The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.

Title: The use of all drugs that are currently illegal in the US should be legalized Content: Pro has made very common sense points in this round, but his logic is flawed. Pro states that the government cannot regulate items that do not infringe on others rights. I concede to this point whole heartedly. The possession of drugs however does led to the the harming and therefor infringement of other people. Such examples are of drug caused murders, and other crimes directly caused by drugs. Also regarding the example of Portugal, the laws that were put in place only limited the abilities of the cartels that were running rampant in the country just as they are in Mexico. The US however does not have effectively organized cartels, and therefor the immediate decrease in drug related crimes would not be driven down as predicted in Portugal's model. More importantly drugs such as cocaine cannot be legalized for the simple reason that it is blatantly unsafe for the consumer. There are reasons that organizations like the FDA prevent companies from releasing dangerous drugs. To say that selling cocaine is acceptable, is like saying it is acceptable to sell tainted food to even knowledgeable consumers. Secondly, the vast majority of the population does not care about the risks, and unfortunately the government has to do that caring for them just as government agencies do in other sectors.

Title: produce high quality generic drugs for Africa Content: Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers

Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.

Title: Resolved: Illicit drugs should be decriminalized and regulated by the FDA Content: Thank you, as we approach the end of the debate let us look at the arguments made so far and realize why the pro wins. R1: Incompetence of FDA My opponent claims that the FDA is not capable of being able to regulate drugs due to a history of incompetence. While the sources he cited do show some incompetence on the part of the FDA, what we need to realize is that during the time of which these actions are taking place, the general public was against the FDA regulating prescription drugs. Not only this but the evidence provided is years old and since the FDA has become a more infallible department that can regulate drugs. Not only this, but my opponent has not provided a better actor as an alternative so we can only assume that the best organization for this legislation is the FDA. Also, the source of most corruption in the FDA is from big pharmaceutical companies cashing in on new drugs that the FDA approves, and most of those drugs don’t necessarily harm people. Finally, if it turns into a problem we could use future legislation to further guarantee the safety of said drugs. R2: Lives Since my opponent no longer has the point that the FDA has no means to regulate the illicit drugs, his point about losing lives also falls. I have shown countless examples and evidence of why the cost of lives will decrease in my previous cases, including incentivizing alternatives to jail time which would decrease drug abuse such as therapy. Not only, this, but since the FDA will heavily regulate the drugs, we will see decreases in abuse and consumption, as well as monitoring the content of said drugs. R3: Economics If the livelihood of the people is not in danger, that leaves economics. My opponent states that regulating the drugs would increase government expenditures which would mean that there would be no profit for the federal government. That entire premise is false. I have shown an article from the CATO institute in my first argument showing the fact that even with regulation taken into account there is still a net profit for the federal government if we were to tax it like we would for cigarettes and alcohol. Also, according to a recent Mint Press News article, Colorado, which has recently legalized marijuana with an excise tax of 15%, has seen less crime and has had revenues of millions of dollars to be used for school construction. This kind of money being available proves that on the federal level, we can make more use of this, possibly even fixing our crippling infrastructure. Even if you do not buy this argument, imagine all of the jobs we could create by making a new industry for the everyday consumer. This would incentivize private industry in a safe manner while also promoting safety. R4: Morality My opponent brings up the morality of allowing people to kill themselves with drugs, however, let us look at a different question. How can we allow Alcohol to be legal if it also kills people? In fact, according to a Reuters article, a study was done recently by the Independent Scientific Community on Drugs and the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction found that alcohol was the most harmful drug to society and the individual. According to the World Health Organization, over 2.5 million deaths are directly targeted to alcohol. With these facts in mind, why don’t we illegalize alcohol if it is worse than the illicit drugs? This is because of the mess of the Prohibitionist era, where people rioted and illegal “Speakeasies” were popping up completely unregulated where people bought drinks illegally and with no regulation. At least under the new system proposed alcohol could be regulated by the federal government, which prevents youth from drinking and stops people driving under the influence. This is simply the system I am providing today. We are taking an illegal industry, legalizing it, and putting it under harsh regulations to promote safety while promoting private industry. So, what were the results of the prohibition at the time of its introduction? Well, according to the CATO Institute from the 1920s-1930s, there was a definite increase in the homicide rate, which was when the prohibition was introduced and then subsequently abolished. R5: The State of the Debate I have single-handedly addressed every point of my opponent and effectively broken them in today’s round. Not only this, but my opponent has very little evidence to back up his previous points besides his most recent argument, so we must realize who wins today’s argument, which is clearly the pro side. I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate and I await your response. Good Luck! Sources: http://seattleorganicrestaurants.com... http://www.mintpressnews.com... http://www.cato.org... http://www.reuters.com...

Title: Cosmetic Surgery Should Be Banned Content: A friend went to the wedding of a British man and his Texan girlfriend. She looked across the aisle and saw a whole row of identical-looking women. "I didn"t know Diane had so many sisters," she said to her neighbour. "Oh, they"re not family," came the reply. "They"ve just all gone to the same plastic surgeon." The Government published the responses to its consultation on regulating the industry. For a medical process that can cause disfigurement and even death, the rules are astonishingly lax. Any doctor can practice as a cosmetic surgeon, with no specialized experience or training. When patients go for a consultation, it"s as often with a sales rep as a surgeon. There is no cooling-off period to allow people to change their minds, and some clinics take non-refundable deposits on the spot. They offer buy-one-get-one-free deals, as if boob jobs were packets of cereal, and they even bombard 17-year-olds with texts offering them procedures at their next birthday. Prescription medicines can"t be advertised. So why do we allow advertising of major surgical interventions with questionable physical and psychological results? Yes, some people may be thrilled with their nose jobs or bigger breasts. But many aren"t. Some simply alight on another part of their body to hate. Some find that their smoother forehead doesn"t solve their relationship problems. Some have unsightly scars, eyelids that won"t shut or implants that rupture. Most chillingly, a whole clutch of studies has found that women with breast implants are three to four times more likely to commit suicide than those without. Whichever way the line of causation runs, it"s alarming. So there is a lot that ministers can do to tighten up the industry. But we also need to look deeper and ask why women hate their bodies and faces so much that they are prepared to spend a fortune, suffer pain, and take serious risks in going under the knife. For this is an overwhelmingly female problem: women comprise 90 per cent of plastic surgery patients. And it starts early: Girlguiding UK found that 47 per cent of girls said that the pressure to look attractive was the most negative part of being female and half of young women aged 16 to 21 would consider cosmetic surgery. They"ve watched extreme makeover shows on TV, they"ve read bitchy criticism of any female celebrity"s slightest imperfection and they"ve been bombarded in the media by a narrow definition of beauty which the vast majority of them can never attain. Then we see women being chosen, as TV presenters or celebrity WAGs, entirely on the basis of their youth and beauty, not their intelligence or wisdom or kindness or humour. Men can age and be ugly in public life; women can"t. If we find that we"re invisible over the age of 50, possibly even 40, it"s not surprising that some of us are prepared to take drastic action just to make ourselves seen again. It would be good to see similar research on TV viewing figures. There"s a huge and growing older demographic, who are more likely to stay in and watch TV. I am sure ratings would go up if more older women appeared on their screens. When I conducted an informal focus group on this subject with younger women, even they said they wanted older role models and would prefer to see older women presenters. And then, perhaps, women could stop looking at themselves through a filter of self-hatred. They might start thinking, "I"m a fun person", rather than "my nose is too big". Instead of obsessing about how they look on the outside, they could start thinking about who they are on the inside.

Title: The United States Should End the War on Drugs Content: Individuals participate in society because it is in the best interests of all who participate. Left to their own device, people are selfish, cruel, and miserable. Many people simply lack the logic and proper ability to reason to make effective choices even if all the required evidence, materials and information is available to them. In a hands-off approach to society, these people are effectively destined to lead miserable and unfulfilled lives solely because they are born and raised in an environment in which their nature is to fail. Stating that it is immoral for government to interfere in the lives of individuals does not make it fact. It is an assertion. Defining government any way you wish will obviously allow any moral claims as to the proper role of government to be true by definition. Clearly I can do the same in saying that people of a nation have an implicit social contract with the government, the purpose of which is to provide the maximum amount of happiness to the most people. The first claim that my opponent makes is that the most commonly abused drugs are "legal prescription drugs". This is a patently false an very misleading statement. Pro's source clearly states that 20% of US citizens have used some kind of prescription medication for non medical reasons. This includes people who have used said medication only one time. Using this same criteria, we find that Marijuana is more than twice as popular as prescription drugs [1], while alcohol and tobacco are almost four times as popular[2][3]. My opponent seems to limit her understanding of the War on Drugs to the legislative and educational effects of specific policies that are included within the War on Drugs. By making this mistake, she makes a clear and confusing contradiction. She argues that: :the repercussions of said drugs are 99% less harmful than the drugs that are legal. despite the fact that she must know that illegal drugs are used far less than legal drugs. A drug such as morphine or Heroin is effectively harmless in comparison to something such as alcohol. In addition to being less harmful, morphia is possible to directly substitute for alcohol in even extreme cases of alcohol obsession[4]. However, despite their relative safety, almost as few as .6% Americans use opiates[10], while over 50% of the population regularly uses alcohol. How can you possibly explain this contradiction? Why would Americans use a substance that is obviously more harmful at a rate that is much higher than than a drug that is much safer and more pleasant? The answer is that the War on Drugs is not simply the sum of legislation and programs regarding drug use and distribution. It is a state of mind. It's a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. They also KNOW that virtually identical drugs are perfectly harmless when "prescribed" or "prescribable" by a doctor. In essence, the system itself is it's own ultimate justification. How can you honestly trust a person to make rational health decisions for themselves when they openly admit that their beliefs directly contradict with the most basic rules of logic? Surely one would never argue that a child should be given the opportunity to make negative life altering decisions. This is because they lack the innate ability of rationality that we associate that with adulthood. However, what few want to admit is that rationality does not exist in a static state. Rather, rationality is measured on a sliding scale, with no true reference point. Most adults, while arguably more rational than children, need to their behavior regulated lest the slip into a chain of self destructive behavior. While Pro may be quick to point out that the majority of people are responsible enough to regulate their own behavior, the evidence clearly shows this to be false. The overwhelming majority of Americans have some type of degrading vice, whether it be the inability to control their eating, substance abuse, or any other emotional disorder. Now, Pro may be inclined to argue that such restrictions on human behavior are severe intrusions on freedom. However, the concept of freedom is arbitrary. There is no evidence that such a thing as free will exists; people are slaves to their own passions and their own nature. By strictly regulating human behavior, we are able to substitute the horrors of human nature (enslavement) for the lesser burden of societal codes. Even if one's natural state is changed by government, there is no reason to reject this intrusion if one clearly benefits from this "intrusion". Even if you regard it as slavery, there is no reason to not choose the more kind of two masters if no other choices are present. As for the War on Drugs itself, obvious changes need to be made. Much more power needs to be given to the federal government to establish full police power to truly enforce prohibition. One of the reasons why alcohol (and current) prohibitions do not work as well as they could is that the federal government relies on states to enforce the law by proxy. In the current system, States have a conflict of interest when it comes to enforcing drug laws. They have a variety of other important aspects of law enforcement to attend to, and suppressing drug use does not yield immediate benefits. During prohibition, as it is now, resulted in a half hearted enforcement of drug laws. This has shown to be effective in countries that have taken a serious stance as far as prohibiting specific substances such as alcohol[9]. Currently we are focused primarily on the least harmful of substances. Rather, we should focus most of our efforts on the most dangerous of drugs, such as smoked tobacco, alcohol, and methamphetamine. This can be accomplished by slowly reversing the perceived dangers of legal drugs. By releasing a new wave of propaganda and social indoctrination, we can make people understand that the (real) most harmful drugs should be the least socially acceptable, while retaining the illegal status (seeing as all but marijuana are currently at unprecedentedly low levels as it is). There is already a massive movement to criminalize tobacco and once that is accomplished, Alcohol companies can take on the role as the new Evil Villain. Studies showing that alcohol being more dangerous than Heroin and Cocaine will produce cries of moral outrage and condemnation of the companies that have defended and encouraged such horrible concoctions. The mentality of an invisible War on Drugs has showed itself to be a useful tool for manipulating the behavior of society. To abandon it now will be to have wasted nearly a century of social engineering and experimentation. We've proved beyond a doubt that through social manipulation, use of certain drugs can be pushed into nearly non existence despite their relative safety and medical history. While prohibition has had marginal effects already, imagine how much of a difference can be made by prohibiting drugs that are truly are the most dangerous? 1. http://www.time.com... 2. http://www.ok.gov... 3. http://rileychildrenshospital.com... 4. http://books.google.com... 5. http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6. http://www.nytimes.com... 7. http://pewresearch.org... 8. http://www.scrippsnews.com... 9. http://en.wikipedia.org... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Great debate. Thanks.

Title: Death penalty Content: THIS WILL BE A CONGRESS STYLE OF DEBATE. lETS HAVE SOME FUN Good evening. Tonight I would like to discuss with you a practice that separates the United States from Every other country in the Western Hemisphere. This, of course, is the use of homicide as an official tool of the state, otherwise known as the death penalty. But first I would like to talk to you for a moment about consumer protection. You see, in this great nation of ours, we have laws on the books that protect consumers from faulty products. We protect consumers from drugs that are dangerous. From foodstuffs that are poisonous. From toys and appliances that are defective. The list goes on and on. We have many regulatory agencies that hire thousands of inspectors and adopt reams and reams of regulations to protect us. The Food and Drug Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency. The people who inspect our eggs and beef and poultry and milk. Imagine, if you will, that you visited your doctor, and she or he prescribed a drug that works miracles for six out of every seven people who take it. But due to a defect with the drug, one out of every seven people who take the drug end up dying. You can imagine the many lawsuits that would ensue. You can imagine how quickly this drug would be yanked off the market. You can imagine the congressional hearings, the charges and countercharges, the acrimony and finger-pointing that would follow as we rushed to keep our people safe—in this great nation of ours. Now. Let's talk about the death penalty. Since the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in the 1970s, 741 people have been executed in the United States. Unfortunately, as I give this speech, that number is climbing to 743, courtesy of the states of Georgia and Texas. And yet 98 people, or about one out of every seven executed, have walked off death row after new evidence emerged that proved their absolute innocence. Let me be very clear here. I am not talking about people whose sentences or convictions were overturned on what some might call a technicality. I am talking about actual innocence. Think about it. If one of every seven car tires sold in this country was subject to a blowout, if one of every seven chickens taken to market infected someone with salmonella, if one of every seven cars manufactured had a faulty engine that exploded every now and again, these things would be taken off the market. But for every seven people executed since 1976, one actually innocent person has been sent to death row. Yet the death penalty remains "on the market." There are, of course, many reasons why I oppose the death penalty, in addition to the fact that I believe innocent people can be executed and in fact have been executed. I'd like to share with you some of these reasons. Many of you know I worked on the case of Gary Graham. Gary came from the fifth ward in Houston, Texas. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the robbery-murder of a shopping clerk. There are many things about Gary's case that are illustrative of the kind of problems caused by the death penalty. Number one: Gary was a juvenile when it was alleged he committed the crime for which he was convicted. Only five other countries are known to have executed children in the past decade—Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen. But in the U.S., 13 states, including Texas, allow for the execution of people who commit crimes as juveniles. Number two: Gary was Black. Black people make up 12.1 percent of our nation's population—but comprise 43 percent of death rows across the United States. Racial disparities continue to define who lives and who dies under this punishment. Number three: Gary was convicted on the very shaky eyewitness testimony of one person. The Bible in the Book of Numbers says we shouldn't convict on the testimony of one eyewitness. But our courts say otherwise. Number four: When Gary's supporters discovered new evidence of innocence, the courts wouldn't hear it. You see, the Congress and the State Legislatures have put time limits for the introduction of new evidence. New evidence can show a person's innocence, but if it is not introduced in time, it may not be heard. The Supreme Court has even ruled that as long as a person has received fair trial, it is not unconstitutional to execute an innocent person. Now does that make any sense? Number five: Gary was from Texas. Texas has executed 253 people since reinstatement—or more than one third of the people executed in the United States. Many of those executions were from Houston, Gary's home town. Harris County, which encompasses Houston, has sent 63 people to the death chamber since 1976. If it were a state, Harris County would rank third in the number of people executed, behind Texas and Virginia. Gary Graham was executed in the summer of 2000. His case pointed out then many problems the death penalty brings to our system of justice. Incompetent legal counsel, racial bias. The possibility—in this case the probability of innocence, the very issue of disproportionality—Gary probably would not have been executed if he was from a different state or if he had drawn a different prosecutor or a different jury. But the tide is turning. The very same tide that swept up Gary Graham and so many like him is now turning. Consider these developments: The U.S. Supreme Court this term is set to take up the question of whether mentally retarded people can be executed. 18 states have banned this barbaric practice—including five states this year alone. Across the globe, a strong international consensus against execution of the retarded has emerged. Of those countries that still employ capital punishment, only two—the United States and Kyrgyzstan—regularly put the retarded to death. Fifteen states have banned the execution of people who commit crimes as juveniles. Next year, Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio and Missouri will consider similar legislation. Across the nation, a healthy moratorium movement is battling the notion of state-sponsored homicide. The republican governor of Illinois declared a moratorium in his state after many innocent people were discovered on death row, some with rapidly approaching execution dates. States like California, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland and Pennsylvania are giving birth to healthy moratorium campaigns. In the state of North Carolina alone, elected officials in 14 town and cities have passed resolutions supporting a moratorium on executions. Nationwide, 58 towns, cities, and counties have done likewise—and polls consistently show that more than 60 percent of the American public supports a moratorium on the death penalty. Since September 11, the poll numbers have only risen slightly. Around the globe, 110 nations have abolished the death penalty, either in law or in practice. This growing list includes Chile and Yugoslavia, both of whom outlawed the practice earlier this year. So yes, the tide is turning, but now we face a new and profound challenge. I refer of course to the events of September 11th. It has been said that war is never the friend of social justice movements. When we fear, we clamp down on those who do not think like we think or do not look like we look. Since September 11th, we have seen our federal government incarcerate without trial or access to bail more than 1,000 people, mostly of Middle Eastern or Southern Asian descent. Now it is revealed that Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to allow Federal Authorities to listen in on privileged conversations between these detainees and their lawyers. Furthermore, the government will no longer reveal how many people are being illegally incarcerated or where they are being held—this despite the fact that the FBI has admitted that 99 percent of those detained have nothing to do with the events of September 11th. Please vote in NEGATION to the topic.

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: *NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term "relative". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world." Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word "Costs" as used in the debate title is defined as "The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as "Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup." I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.

Title: It's a "No-Brainer". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of "Dubya" by raking in the profits Content: My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the "Good Guys". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses "high cholesterol". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, "Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but .. well, there' just NO PROFIT in it." Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, "Let's go get a drink." Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) I did not bring up advertising expenditures. My opponent did. Therefore, there was no point for me to prove. In addition, by definition, revenue itself cannot represent a loss. Loss occurs as a result of the costs associated in generating that revenue. The costs of total drug legalization are much broader in scope than simple advertising expenditures. I have already outlined these costs in my four previous arguments. This point was originally meant to highlight the lack of any legitimate sourcing or data by my opponent with regards to his 'estimates' of potential legalized drug revenues. 1b) A new regulatory unit would not be funded with the purpose of performing simple inspections. This unit would be required to oversee all aspects of the new industry. Police do not inspect airlines, the FAA does. Police do not provide standards for allowing pharmaceutical companies to see meds, the FDA does. Police do not inspect people's taxes, the IRS does. The regulatory units are responsible for the creation of standards, the monitoring of the industry, the maintenance of quality, the detection of issues, the promotion of solutions, the suggestion of changes, the analysis of data, the presentation to legislators, etc. All three of the units I mentioned earlier (FAA, FDA, IRS) are very underfunded, meaning they need more funding to operate optimally. This new agency would encounter the same problems, aside from its initial funding costs. 2a) The W-2 program itself and the supposed success of it are outside the scope of this discussion. In addition, we don't know what portion of these criminals would join welfare or that program, should it actually be successful on a national scale. The whole point is that the program and welfare both represent COSTS. More people in the program means more COSTS. In addition, the portion of criminals that would not enter such a program would likely re-enter the black market. Another cost, and an impediment towards crime rate reduction. 2b) In order to obtain a warrant, police need probable cause that a crime or evidence of a crime exists in a household. If drugs are legal, then it makes it that much more difficult for police to obtain a warrant with regards to 'excess drugs'. How would a police officer obtain a warrant due to probable cause, where he/she suspects a legal drug use to have too much of a legal drug? In addition, the necessary work involved in finding this proof and obtaining the necessary warrants represents yet another COST. Time and resources cost money. 3 main reasons the drug trade may be somewhat profitable: 1) They are oligopolistic in nature. Therefore they can control prices; 2) Barriers to purchase exist. People cannot buy them legally, so dealers place a premium on the price. 3) Depending on the dealers, lower quality (and potentially dangerous) substitute substances can be used in the production of some of these drugs in order to lower costs All of these reasons would disappear if all drugs were legalized. Throw a tax in there, and all of a sudden, most (if not all) of this supposed surplus disappears. I could write more, but all of my points have been stated in the previous four arguments. The main point is this: The costs of legalizing all drugs (regulation, tax collection, litigation, productivity, rehabilitation, life-damage, etc, etc, etc) exceed the benefits (a guessed-at tax revenue figure, based off of journalistic data).

Title: Wastage Content: Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes £100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer.

Title: Drug Legalization Content: Not all drugs are illegal (like tobacco). Drugs that ARE illegal retain this condition of illegality for a reason. Illegal drugs are harmful to society as a whole. If drugs were to be legalized, multimillion corporations, which would no doubt be established, would be free to launch mass advertising campaigns promoting these drugs to the entire nation. A staggering number people allow themselves to be put under the influence of legal drugs. Not all of these people are addicts, but the drugs that my opponent believes should be legalized are highly addictive. Imagine the sheer number of people who are very productive citizens becoming encumbered and debilitated by drugs that we currently consider illegal. My opponent argues economic benefits, but I will argue otherwise. With millions under the influence of such drugs that generally cause physical and mental impairment, the nation loses an immense number of potential workforce. Potential doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs would be crippled by use and abuse. Addiction is not a condition that people chose to have. Legalizing illegal drugs would provide an even larger base of drug for the teen consumers. Many of these children, in youthful stupidity or curiosity, have tried legal drugs. A good number of the experimenting teens become ensnared in it these harmful products. Illegal drugs, which are even more harmful and addictive, would give rise to this same problem at a much larger scale. Are the few tens of billions of potential profits worth the hundreds of billions lost from potential output of productive people? Drugs destroy productivity and therefore limit the economic output of potentially productive citizens. Here are some other drug related economic and statistical data: "Every year, tobacco companies spend billions of dollars on advertising and promotion, and tobacco use costs the United States billions of dollars in medical expenses and lost productivity. . . During 2000"2004, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States (nearly $96 billion in direct medical costs and an additional $97 billion in lost productivity)." [1] There actually is a cite-able case example of the influence of these drugs that harm not only its user, but the entire nation as an economic Unit. One of the most powerful and prominent nation in the world, 14th-18th century China was a nation of renown. Traders from all over Eurasia traveled te Silk Roads to glimpse China's unmatched products. As China flourished, it amassed considerable wealth and status among the Eurasian nations and maintained this status for a few centuries. Then, near the beginning of the 18th century, Opium (a drug) was introduced to China via Portuguese vessels[2]. Within one and a half century, this drug will have permeated and deteriorated nearly all levels of Chinese society, destroying its productive workforce and corrupting its government. One and a half century after Opium's introduction, China's economy will have been utterly pulverized. The cost to China was enormous. The drug weakened a large percentage of the population (some estimate that 10 percent of the population regularly used opium by the late nineteenth century), and silver began to flow out of the country to pay for the opium. Many of the economic problems China faced later were either directly or indirectly traced to the opium trade. [3] How profound an effect did Opium have? When Japan first launched its attack on China, the international world, expecting China to easily crush this assault attempt, were shocked: Japan won. China had fallen behind economically, politically and technologically. innumerable times the people revolted, its millennium old political system was uprooted and China fell into deep poverty. China went through several revolutions, (Boxer Rebellion, The Great Proletarian). Its infrastructure was thoroughly ravaged. China is currently climbing a dangerous peak by enacting horrible economic policies (such as never cutting back production). A catastrophic fall is mounting. (Must I also mention its bad social conditions?) An effective recovery never happened. What does this portend? In legalizing all currently illegal drugs, we inadvertently taking a horrible risk. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.druglibrary.org... [3] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu...

Title: People should ask for cheaper alternatives Content: Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor’s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.

Title: All Drugs Should Be Legal Content: Extend

Title: All Drugs Should Be Legalized Content: I accept :)

Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. "They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.

Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic

Title: Drugs should be allowed in the United States Content: Extend

Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: Since you forfeited, I am guessing that the round goes to me. If you ran out of time, or lost interest in this debate and forgot, then I completely understand. It's happened to me before. I await your answer in your next speech. Thank you.

Title: Medical Marijuana Content: I will rebut the snide wikipedia remarks. I used wikipedia to show the fact of the matter, not to show any research. Encyclopedias/dictionaries/thesauruses are perfectly cite-worthy when you are using them to show just fact.I used wikipedia sources as evidence for my claim that your sources are biased. If you like, I could find the same information at pretty much any of the websites.My point was that the agency you quoted is mandated to oppose legalization at all costs, so it obviously isn't trustworthy.Also, two wrongs don't make a right. I wasn't criticizing you, I was criticizing your sources.I didn't criticize the FDA either. The article that YOU quoted was criticizing the FDA, that was my point. Your source was suggesting that the FDA was politically motivated. They aren't politically motivated to say anything about candy because candy isn't a hot button issue. It's unrealistic to think that any bureaucracy wouldn't have at least a little corruption. It isn't a consumer protection agency, it's a food and drug administration, sometimes it acts as a consumer protection agency, but that isn't the primary function.There are tons of chemicals in everything. I've already said that. "400 chemicals" is just a scare phrase. There are carcinogens, but they will only be able to affect you if you smoke it. You can ingest marijuana via food and via vaporizer. The vaporizer wipes out like 90% of the risk and eating it wipes it all out. There is no more risk from eating marijuana than there is from eating a cookie. "Why have it as medicine when you have others that will not act like this?"Like I said, there may be medicines which work better, but that's no reason to ban the ones that don't work as well. Testimonials (which aren't that valid, admittedly) show people who say marijuana worked where other drugs didn't. That's irrelevant though because it works. If it works just 10%, why would you stop someone who wants to do it? It's their choice. Why crack down on cancer-stricken stoners?If I made a list like http://www.well.com... has of morphine, do you think it would fare better or worse?I think morphine will mess you up a heck of a lot worse than marijuana, and morphine is completely medically legal. I have looked up my opponent's assertion that marijuana can cause schizophrenia. I found that the causal relationship is controversial and is still being studied (1) (2) (3).Lots of medicine can cause psychosis. X can cause psychosis ergo X is not medicine is not a valid argument. Adrenal failure can cause psychosis, so medications that can cause adrenal failure can cause psychosis. It is logically NOT the only medicine that can cause psychosis. I don't know what you meant to say, but you said "It also causes cannabis which is short term."I put harm and effectiveness in the same category. The more it harms you, the less effective it is, so my Tylenol and Advil analogy still stands unless you would say that it can harm you a lot and still remain an effective and legal drug (like chemotherapy- WAY worse than marijuana), but then you have to answer to why marijuana doesn't fit that category.I never said "only the stuff with it". I said a whole is not just the sum of it's parts. That's a fallacy. You just made it again for the second time. There is no arsenic in marijuana, but if you had a small enough amount of arsenic, then yeah the coffee wouldn't be toxic. Your analogy to coffee doesn't apply at all. Radiation causes cancer, that's common knowledge, however, radiation is also used to treat cancer. Something can cause cancer and still be legal medically. In fact, it happens all the time. Maybe I'm mistaken about what you mean, because I thought you had made a typo before. What do you mean "It causes cannabis". Cannabis is the scientific term for marijuana. One cannot cause cannabis.Cannabis does NOT cause crime. Cannabis IS crime. It is the criminalization that causes crime. We are in the same boat today as we were in the 1920's when alcohol was made illegal by the government. The mob was created because of alcohol. Al Capone was an alcohol dealer.Cannabis is the same story.On the aggressiveness and addiction, if you read it, you'll notice that it says the aggressiveness/withdrawal peaks at 1 week after they quit. It also doesn't say it causes agression is says it causes "increased agression" which could mean the equivalent of being cranky from staying up too late.That has got to be one of the shortest withdrawals around. I was just making a joke about having never seen an aggressive marijuana user, don't get so uppity. Cannabis doesn't make you aggressive, cannabis WITHDRAWAL makes you aggressive (and possibly only mildly) and you only have withdrawal if you get addicted which means that there's a 91% chance that you will never see the aggressiveness while smoking."Obviously I don't mean every pot user becomes aggressive, but many do."If you define whatever percent of 9% that quits as "many" then sure. It does appear that several people on this forum think marijuana makes them aggressive. Sources 4-6 will show legal medications which can also cause mood swings.I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. I have enjoyed it. I ask the readers to please vote pro.Sources:(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;(4) http://ibdcrohns.about.com...(5) http://infertility.about.com...(6) http://i-base.info...

Title: Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare Content: Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.

Title: Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results Content: Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. “The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. “The pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. “Drug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political "contributions" over the past decade in the US alone.”[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi

Title: let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal Content: I don't accept that PRO should have BOP. The BOP is on those who are claiming that we should lock up people who use and sell drugs for life. The BOP is on those who want to use the power of the state to take away someone's freedom for the rest of their life (as current draconian drug laws allow) - if you want to do this to someone, if you want to make the very cruel and inhumane punishment of locking someone up for the rest of their life you better have a pretty good reason why you want to do it. All drugs should be legal. The war on drugs has provided great injury to our civil liberties. Every day the police spy on us, tap our phones and violate due process with warantless searches. This is a war that has turned brother against brother and son against father as people inform on each other to curry favour with the state or to punish an enemy. Prohibition of controlled substances has created a blossoming black market in the sale of illegal substances. Since those who participate in this market are by definition criminals it is no surprise to find that crime and fraud are rampant. Well meaning drug consumers are taken advantage of at every turn. Often drug dealers cut their highly expensive illegal products with other goods, in order to obtain even further profits fraudulently - if drugs were legal this would never happen. Nor would they be as expensive. The price of these drugs includes an incredible risk premium charged by the drug dealer, as well as all the extra costs associated with hiding the drug from the authorities and the extreme difficulties in shipping across borders and of course the theft of great amounts of the product by authorities. If we legalized drugs they would cost pennies on the dollar and be widely available. Pharmacists would be able to experiment freely and create newer and even cooler hallucinogens. There is simply no telling how fucked up we'd be able to get. Drugs can be used as an aid in the creation of the art. They can also be used for many medicinal purposes. For example ketamine, currently a schedule i controlled substance in my country (akin to heroin or methamphetamine), has medical uses as an anti-depressant. Yet it is a crime, punishable up to 9 years in prison to possess it. A drug that makes you happy can lend you nine years in prison. Marijuana stimulates hunger and suppresses nausea in cancer patients. Illegal. Heroin is a very effective pain killer. Illegal. Amphetamines are illegal and yet doctors prescribe them to children in the form of Adderal. It's all very contradictory and paradoxical. The war on drugs is ran at a tremendous cost at the taxpayer, all to keep people from buying things they want. It is not the state's decision if I or anyone else choose to use drugs. That is my decision and my decision alone. It is my body. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me what I can and cannot put in my body? Ultimately if you argue this you are arguing that it is not my body, but the governments body, that I am a slave to the state and that I must take care of their body for them. If it is true that the state can regulate my consumption of drugs, then surely it must be true that the state can regulate what you eat and drink and how much exercise you get. You are conceding the moral premise of totalitarianism that virtually everything we do should be regulated by the state.

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Alright, this is pretty straightforward: The U.S. Government starts at the top level with 1 section. U.S. Constitution This is then broken down into 3 equal branches Legislative Branch Judicial Branch Executive Branch The Executive Branch which consists of the President & VP, is broken down then into 14 additional departments as well as a number of Independent Establishments and Government Corporations Health and Human Services (HHS) is one of the Gov Departments Under HHS is the most expensive headache of the Pharmaceutical Industry Food and Drug Administration (FDA) The FDA, who is in control of most regulations for the drug industry, hides its own publicly available NDA (New Drug Application) prices hidden in a labrynth of wep pages on its own site. These prices, for the fiscal year 2010, was $1,841,500 PER APPLICATION. In total, there were payments made to the FDA as follows: Application fees -- $172,238, 150 Establishment fees -- $183,328,513 Product fees -- $173,709,880 Total fees collected (just for Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees) -- $529,276,543 This can be seen at: http://blogs.plos.org...;It can also be seen directly from the FDA here: http://www.fda.gov... Forbes also reports that properly adjusting for drug trials as is required by the FDA, 1 single new drug can cost a staggering $12 billion dollars, including clinical trials which can cost as much as $100 million a piece. http://www.forbes.com...;On top of these staggering costs brought forward just by the FDA, medscape.com, one the most FDA friendly review sites on the net reports that the process of getting a new medication from idea to market, is about 12 years. http://www.medscape.com...;Next is the Affordable Care Act's new Pharnmaceutical Tax which by itself is costing between $3 billion - $4 billion to each manufacturing company each year. http://www.irs.gov...;Worst part is, this only accounts for the FDA; this does NOT account for fire code, health code, OSHA, local taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, etc. Let's think about taxes for a second here: The U.S. currently has a 35%-39% federal corporate tax rate which is 3rd highest on the planet. There are then the state taxes of an average of 10%, followed by the local taxes which average 4.5%. That's an average total of 54% paid in taxes to the government annually. http://www.ey.com...;All of these expendatures outlined, it's not a wonder why prices for medications in America are so darn high.

Title: Drug Legalization Content: Audience, please vote based on presented arguments and not personal opinion. INTRODUCTION I am arguing that the purchase, sale, manufacture, transportation, and private usage of all "street drugs" should be legalized within the United States. There are two small exceptions to my argument. First, drugs should not be allowed to be advertised or sold to minors. Second, a person should not be allowed to force drugs upon someone who is unwilling (this includes second hand smoke). I also care to inform everybody that I do not use drugs. I have never used them once and I will never use them. I personally suggest that everybody should use their free will and choose to stay drug-free, especially children. I also personally suggest that schools, parents, and businesses use their free will to educate children about the harm that drugs cause. Drug abuse is a problem which needs to be solved by a person's free will and not by government force. I am not arguing this because I believe that drugs are not a problem or that they are not harmful. They are very harmful and drug abuse is a very big problem. I am arguing this because I believe government prohibition will never solve the problem. THE HARM OF CONTINUING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS Many people mean well by advocating policies, but they are ineffective and cause blowback. For the below reasons, I am against government prohibition of drugs: 1)Prohibition decreases the supply of drugs (because drugs are harder to obtain now), but not the demand (because many people are still addicted to drugs even during prohibition). When supply is lowered and demand stays the same, the only result is that drugs increase in value. 2)When people are willing to pay more money for drugs due to it's value increase, the drug industry and the black market both profit. How do you think they finance their operations now? 3)Prohibition was tried during the 1920's in the United States to prohibit alcohol. In result, alcohol usage stayed exactly the same, gang/street violence sharply increased. 4)Men and women in the coastguard have to risk their lives fighting against armed boats which carry drugs. Police in the streets have to risk their lives fighting against armed gangs which carry drugs. 5)There is a moral dilemma about prohibition also. What gives government the right to dictate what an individual does to his/her own body? Should we ban automobiles, airplanes, and unhealthy food because they cause many deaths also? THE BENEFITS OF ENDING GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION OF DRUGS Ending government prohibition will not completely solve the problem. But ending government prohibition will give more benefits than harm: 1)Since using drugs would no longer be a crime after prohibition ends, the police and government will be able to focus more of their efforts on other crimes (which actually involve victims) such as murder, rape, theft, fraud, malpractice, and physical abuse. 2)By allowing drugs in the market, they are able to taxed as all items are, increasing revenue for the government. Also, not having to upkeep millions of prisoners would not decrease. This increase of revenue can be used to make down payments on our twelve trillion dollar national debt. 3)By ending prohibition we would all be able to change our mindset on the issue. People battling a terrible addiction will no longer be known as criminals, but as victims. The drug problem will no longer be known as solved just because it is covered up by ineffective legislation. We would acknowledge the government's failure in solving the drug problem and we would be able to try a new solution. CONCLUSION People do not use drugs simply because they are legal. Many use them because of peer pressure, lack of knowledge, and/or poor parenting. Many use them to temporarily alleviate the pain of stress, anxiety, depression, and other personal problems. There are only two ways to stop someone from taking up drugs: 1)Removing ALL drugs from Earth. Which is not possible and poorly emulated by prohibition. 2)Face the problems which make people resort to using drugs. Which would be difficult, but possible. I am not arguing against prohibition for idealistic reasons. I am not an idealist. I am a realist. I recognize the problems drugs cause and I think it needs to be addressed realistically. I am not a social darwinist. I show genuine concern for the well-being of others. I want to be part of a generation which solves this drug issue once and for all. But before we can go about solving the problem, we need to recognize that government is not the solution. It is the problem. Ending government prohibition is only a small step towards ending drug abuse, but it is a step which must be taken in order to confront this problem.

Title: FOR Branded Oxycodone + Hydrocodone @ MEDISUPPIES. COM || Pay by PayPal Content: Buy oxycodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com which is drug or medication that reduces pain and prescribed because of their effective pain-relieving properties from injuries, Cancer, Arthritis and other detrimental conditions. Oxycodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com , A morphine-like drug also referred to as opioids, Acts in the brain and deviates how our body responds and senses pain. Taken just as given by the doctor, Opioids can aid minimizing pain effectively. At www. Medisuppies. Com , You find different range of drugs to reduce pain or ache. We always made delivery within stipulated time. We are serving people for decades. We have years of experience in doing online business in Pharmacy. Our experience makes us stand ahead of anyone out in the market. We maintained quality and consistency which helps us to shine in our arena of pharma industry. Provided drugs are no doubt free from any adulteration. We are certified pharmaceutical product provider who always strive for customer satisfaction by our timely services. You also get fully description user manual or medication guide so that you wonâ€™t find it difficult to use. There are thousands of medications and drugs to get rid from moderate to severe pain. Buy Hydrocodone www. Medisuppies. Com is one of the best narcotic drugs that is used to get relieve from any pain or ache. High-quality and effective hydrocodone supplies in Texas @ www. Medisuppies. Com can be provided by US pharmacy your trusted and reliable online store for any kind of medication and drugs. www. Medisuppies. Com offer range of medicines that too in very cheap rates. Buying medicine from any store offline can cost you more but having your needed medication online can not only save you time but also saves you time. In todayâ€™s fast pace world, Many people donâ€™t have time to visit doctor or prescribed medicines for their illness, So, Considering that we bring our range of medication options which you will get here i. E. @ www. Medisuppies. Com an online store for all kind medication and drug. Buy hydrocodone online without prescription @ www. Medisuppies. Com is not suitable for children who are below age of six or for pregnant ladies due to the risk of side effects that it possesses. You can buy Hydrocodone online @ www. Medisuppies. Com to treat moderate to severe pain. This medication is not suitable for children who are less than six years of age due to the risk of side effects that it possesses such as slow or shallow breathing. Buy Branded Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, And Percocet @ www. Medisuppies. ComBuy Oxycodone, Zanax, Hydrocodone, Percocet, Soma & many More With Great Discounts & Deals On Offer, No Rx Needed, 100% FDA APPROVED. FREE FED EX OVERNIGHT. VISA/MASTER COD PAYPAL ACCEPTED. ALL PAYMENTS ARE PAYABLE IN UNITED STATES ONLY NO OVERSEAS PAYMENT.

Title: There is no such thing as a safe drug (regulated by the state). Content: In practice this usually just means making drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers. In addition, the offer of “purer” drugs will encourage many who are currently put off by the uncertain risks of drug taking to begin drug abuse. It also implicates governments in drug-taking by making them the guarantor of purity standards. Furthermore, the state can provide services like needle exchanges to minimise the secondary risks of drug use without legalising drugs themselves.

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) My opponent fails to understand the true rigor required in cost/benefit analysis. More advertising does not necessarily translate into 'a surplus of customers'. First of all, the legalization of all addictive, body-distorting, health-damaging substances is likely to produce enough 'advertising' on its own, through the mass media (PR, news, blogs, etc). Therefore, any additional advertising expenditures are unlikely to produce many new incremental 'customers'. This additional spending would simply be wasted. But this is aside from the point. The point is that we do not know, or have any actual idea, of the amount of revenues that could be gained from legalizing these substances. My opponent's guess is as good as my own. With that in mind, choosing to take an action regarding changing the current status quo, when that action will produce unknown or questionable results, is a suboptimal decision. The reason is simple. Unless the current situation is proven to be suboptimal relative to ANY other situation, change simply throws risk into the equation. Risk immediately lowers the trade-off value of the 'new' situation. 1b) Regulation would not be easier, because currently, there is no regulation. A new unit would have to be created and funded. This means IMMEDIATE sunk costs for the government, as there would be no revenues coming in at the time of creation. Not only that, officers would have to be trained. Pharmacies would have to implement new reporting mechanisms. Everything would have to be tracked. These are all real costs. 2a) I refer to criminals with prior records. There would obviously be no records for people who hadn't been caught in the first place. But even for these people...they are not trained members of the work force. Two problems arise out of this. (1) There will be an influx of people into the workforce. Considering the current economy, this wouldn't help the unemployment situation. (2) My opponent suggests making it easier for criminals to enter the workforce. Companies have restrictions against allowing criminals into the workforce because they don't want them there. My opponent proposes providing amnesty to these people as a way of 'tricking' companies into hiring these people. These companies are likely to oppose such a measure. If it did somehow pass, they would likely sue the government. This comprises ANOTHER cost of legalization. 2b) So police now have the right to regularly search your home. This would add even more to the overall costs of legalization, from 2 perspectives. (1) Training and hiring more cops to search homes. (2) People suing the government for invasion of privacy. My opponent proposes the removal of personal rights so that it can collect potential (POTENTIAL) tax revenues. In addition, people who are addicted to addictive substances will likely find ways to purchase these addictive substances, considering the substances are addictive. If they reach their limits with regards to what quantities they can purchase, they will then return to the black market to purchase more. And how do we arrive at these limits? Just arbitrary figures? According to modern medicine, the limits should be 0. As for the tax link, that is a biased article. In addition, it supports a flat sales tax, which is a totally different topic altogether. Firstly, my opponent should read Freakonomics, or anything else that examines drug dealer incomes. The large majority of drug dealers do not make much more than the poorest of legally employed citizens. The ones that do, that also live in the US, are likely to be paying sales taxes already. My opponent has completely ignored the potential costs, both financial and otherwise, of total drug legalization. He assumes that tax revenues would be ample enough to cover these costs, but he has no strong data on the revenues OR the costs. There is no proof that government income would SKYROCKET. In fact, it is very possible that the opposite would occur. But my opponent is 'willing to take this risk', with no data to support him. The crime rate would actually probably increase, per my previous arguments. And from using intuition, reading the news, and experiencing the government in general, most people could safely assume that any problems would definitely not be 'solved fairly quickly'.

Title: Drug Commercials Content: I extend.

Title: The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society! Content: Otherwise you automatically forfeit the entire debate. To clarify, this debate covers drugs such as tobacco, consumed alcohol, heroin, cannabis, crack, and all of the other harmful drugs out their. I will state that their existence has a negative impact on society. DO NOT state that if we completely ban all of them that people will still find ways to take them, because this debate covers their existence and not illegalization of them.

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: I completely spaced out that I had this round coming. I will pass (FF) this round. Judge on it how you please.

Title: drugs Content: should drugs be illegal

Title: Resolved: the United States Government's War on Drugs should be continued in it's entirety Content: Rebut: Gonzales v Raich held that "the power of Congress to regulate local activities as part of a "class of activities" that substantially affect interstate commerce was "well established." The Court continued holding that "doctor-prescribed marijuana has a significant impact on…the supply and demand for black market marijuana, which was…within the power of the federal government to regulate." Congress has the power to regulate local activities that impact the supply and demand for black market drugs. Congress, under the Supreme Court, has the power to regulate ANY activities that affect interstate commerce. (1) The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. Justice Scalia, held "Congress has the power to regulate "intrastate activities that do not…substantially affect interstate commerce, if necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective." Because marijuana is a "fungible commodity," Congress power to control interstate drug trafficking provides sufficient basis to criminalize smoking home-grown weed pursuant to a doctor's prescription" so long as such activities are regulated "in connection with a more comprehensive scheme of regulation." (2) The War on Drugs is constitutional. 1.Unhealthy My opponent's opposition here is the United States government does not have the role to protect people from bad choices. Civil servants take an oath to protect and defend the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Drugs and alcohol represent a domestic enemy. Government ensures that we are safe. When delegating power to a central authority, the people are giving up their right of self defense. Under the social contract, one gives up certain rights to form a stable society, one of your duties as being a member of society is to, in certain cases, give up your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community…to risk or sacrifice one's life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it" (4). Widespread drug use and drug production destabilizes society, "the emergence of a drug economy can result in the destabilization of the state, the political system, the economy and civil society." (5) To preserve society, under the social contract, one MUST be willing to give up their right to harm themselves for the preservation of society. Either that, or drug users must remove themselves from society. Since many people are unwilling to perform their societal duty; the government holds the responsibility of preserving society and illegalizing drugs to preserve the state, which, in the end, benefits all of us. I would like to point out my opponent completely dropped all of the points I made showing how marijuana and other drugs are extremely harmful. They came from scientists who have worked with these drugs. I also would like to point out how my opponent is simply saying just because X and Y are legal A, B, C, etc. should be legal to. All have harmful side effects, "60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs…Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent…marijuana smoke is as irritating as tobacco smoke" (3). They both are dangerous. So, why should we legalize more dangerous substances? 2. Decreased use (plus legal = increased use) "My opponent is using many data points that are great lengths of time apart…" I showed how the drug policy in the Clinton era (from 1992 to 2000) increased in children aged 12 - 17. Is my opponent attempting to argue the fact that such a drastic drop in drug interdiction spending would not have an effect on drug use? Furthermore, I would like to point out, my opponent has provided no counter claims, simply saying that something which directly affects drug supply would not affect drug use is ridiculous. The points I provided were a high point (14.1%) and a low point (8.7%). So, all other data points would be between 14.1% and 8.7%, thus, we can naturally assume, drug use is trending downwards. Once again, is my opponent suggesting policy which directly deals with drug use, would not affect drug use? I already provided worldwide statistics. "when it comes to prohibition, we don't have all the facts" I gave facts. They have not been refuted. Deaths due to alcohol and alcohol use were down. I provided a source, which contained information from a book by Dr. Mark Gold. "legalization in other countries…" 1) different countries have different cultures. Portuguese culture is radically different from American culture so we cannot use this as definitive proof. 2) Portugal never legalized, they merely decriminalized. This would be a reform in the War on Drugs, not an end of the War on Drugs. Thus, it is outside the scope of this debate. 3. Crime Even if legalization ends external crime (cartels) internal crime will still exist. As for DUIs, my opponent, concedes this point and says it does not affect driving but, according to the LA Times "People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident" (6) Now, let's say you somehow end the cartels "the Justice Department reports that most inmates (77.4 percent male and 83.6 percent female) have a drug history and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their current offense…12 percent of all violent offenses and 24.4 percent of all property offenses were drug-money motivated" (3). It is clear that unless the government gives out free drugs, people will still commit crimes to gain access to these drugs. And even then, "Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens" (3). My opponent goes on to say, "The legalization itself will drop prices from the inflated black market prices, and the tax would not fully counteract that drop". 1) Prove it. How does my opponent know the taxation will not counteract the drop? They simply cannot. 2) The "legalization of drugs will cost society between $140-210 billion a year…the societal cost of substance abuse…$238 billion…insurance companies would pass on accident expenses" (3). Socially, it will cost much, much more to legalize. "The revenue from such taxation [will not] offset the social and medical costs these illicit drugs would impose" (3). Will taxes be raised to counteract? My opponent's argument is unfounded. You are also going to increase societal costs. "Patrick Murphy's quote" I ask my opponent to provide some source backing up their claims. And to also show exactly how my arguments prove him wrong. One cannot not definitively know the connection between alcohol and abuse "further research is needed." (7) Mr. Murphy was referring to ILLEGAL DRUGS (8). 4.Treaties It is not unconstitutional. See above arguments. 5.Prison Population My opponent has provided no basis that prices will drop. And it is irrelevant what they were using as my opponent is advocating blanket legalization. My point still stands, "only 2 percent of those in federal prisons were convicted of pure drug possession. They generally committed other and violent crimes to earn a sentence" (3). People are not just in jail for using drugs. My opponent still has provided no basis that there would be lower costs and thus, lower crimes. 6. Trafficking As I quoted above, "if drugs were legalized some restrictions still would be necessary…restricting the sale of legalized drugs to minors, pregnant women, police, military, pilots and prisoners…would still provide a black market niche" (3). You are going to have excluded groups, the cartels will be active. My opponent has failed to provide a source for many of his arguments here. NEED MORE ROOM!

Title: universal health care Content: Ok. Good one. But there are some things you seem to have overlooked. First, I am well aware that doctors are allowed to prescribe medications in the fashion that you described. As I stated before, I know people that have used LDN successfully. The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug. This is because the drug companies refuse to sell it and therefore no one has heard of it. If you asked anyone in this country what drugs they had heard of, they would probably only name drugs they had seen in advertisements, unless of course they were pharmacists or pharmacy students like yourself. Sure, these medications like LDN CAN be prescribed, but WILL they? You said that it would take "billions of billions of dollars" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so. "new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world" If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue. "What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it?" The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE. One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE. The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK.

Title: Drugs that are now illegal to own, use, or sell, should be legalized. Content: Most people believe that the use of chemical concoctions or prescription drugs for recreational purposes is a terrible practice. Some, however, believe that drug use should be legalized. This attitude spans those who believe that drug use is terrible and they would never use it themselves; and those who want to freely use drugs. Jake's position is for legalization. But it is not apparent to which camp he belongs. I am vehemently opposed to the legalization of recreational drugs. My curiosity has overcome my fear. Let's have at it, Jake. Accept my challenge.

Title: The legalization of drugs will increase consumption Content: If a consumer can go to their local drug store around the corner to obtain drugs with greater ease, they are more likely to do so. Obtaining drugs illegally is much more difficult, albeit far too easy. Finding a drug dealer, arranging a time to meet in a secure area, and running all the various risks of dealing illegally are inconveniences that will be removed by legalization, with the likely result of increased consumption.

Title: For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological Content: The current legislation on drug use in most countries was delivered without canvassing medical opinion and under the influence of public hysteria and moral panic. Seemingly logical but flawed theories linking the use of “soft” drugs to later use of “harder” varieties (cocain, amphetamins) have often been used both to justify and to promote drugs legislation. The apparent sense of these arguments belies the fact that they have been repeatedly disproven[i]. Lurid, prurient portrayals of the catastrophic consequences of narcotics use in the mass media are frequently used to back up arguments that drugs- even cannabis- are so dangerous that even carefully controlled medical applications are unacceptably risky. It is clearly the case that when any substance has a proven medical benefit it should be available for prescription. Legislation already exists in most countries to contain the possibility of misuse of prescribed drugs. However, it is clearly the case that politicians are avoiding this issue not because there is medical doubt on the matter but because they are incapable of reaching a logical conclusion for fear of hysterical – and easy – headlines. To withhold treatment from patients who need it on the basis that a tabloid will run a ‘Soft on Drugs’ story the following morning is the height of irresponsibility. [i] Degenhardt, L, et al. “Whoare the new amphetamine users? A ten year prospective study of young Australians. Adiction, volume 102, 8, p1269-1279. August 2007. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01906.x/abstract;jsessionid=90232042DE3BB4456F9DE6F41F29BFBF.d03t03

Title: The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized Content: Due to my failure to follow the prescribed rules I will skip this round and ask that conduct be given to my opponent. I will continue and finish in the final round. This is not a concession or a forfeit, this is me recognizing I failed to follow the rules of the debate as set out.

Title: Marijuana should be legalized. Content: *Topic Specification* This topic needs to be clarified before either of us can debate it appropriately. There are three ways in which a drug can be legalized: 1. The drug is an unregulated substance (like most items of food). There is no substantial body responsible for the safety or production of the substance, and anyone can purchase or sell it. 2. The drug is a prescription drug, regulated by the FDA and prescribed by doctors. 3. The drug is an over-the-counter drug, regulated by the FDA and purchasable by anyone of age at any pharmacy or registered place of sale. (This is actually equivalent to the condition of cigarettes and alcohol) Red24pat12 needs to clarify which (if any of these) he means before any real debate can occur. That said, I will try to provide some general argumentation relating to this topic until red24pat12 does so. *Red24pat12's Argumentation* 1. Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. Why not? This claim has to be warranted before it is worth my time. Beyond that, the long term side-effects of marijuana may or may not be as significant as legal drugs, but this is largely irrelevant, given that legal drugs exist to treat a medical condition, and are a tool doctors can use to do so. Every legal drug is the best method of treatment for some condition under a given circumstance (that's how drugs are approved) What Red24pat12 needs to prove to solidify this argument is: A. Marijuana's side effects are less significant than other drugs which should be legal B. Marijuana is the best method for treating some condition Until he does so, it fails to be convincing. 2. Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. This argument is entirely defensive, and even if Red24pat12 wins this, it will not help his case. The fact that a given bad thing will not occur if the government does something is not a reason to for the government to do it. Otherwise, I could argue that the United States should nuke New York City because if we did, Marijuana use in teenagers would not increase. Even given that, this argument is not convincing. As the availability of a given drug goes up, general use (including teenage use) goes up. Take Ritalin, for example. Presumably, if Ritalin were illegal, it would be harder for teenagers to access it. There is always the possibility of the drug being mishandled or misused by minors, so the reduction of accessibility is generally a good thing. 3. Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals. It is highly unclear why this should be the case. Gangs exist to distribute illegal drugs. When one drug goes off the market - for whatever reason - the gang population will shift to distribute another drug. The only thing legalizing marijuana would do would be to shift dangerous Marijuana drug deals to dangerous other drug deals, and I see no reason why that would be preferable. *My Argumentation* 1. Marijuana has negative external effects beyond those on the individual user. In a health care system where the many pays for the expenses of the few (i.e. health insurance or a public option), other individuals ought not be obligated to pay for the damaging effects of marijuana use on a user. The long-term health costs of more marijuana use in our society are incredibly vast. Marijuana is incredibly carcinogenic, damages brain cells, causes decreased hormone production, memory loss, interferes with the immune system... and the list goes on. Why should Average Joe fund the addiction of potheads? 2. Marijuana is a gateway drug. People who become involved with drugs through marijuana use are highly likely to advance to more serious, more dangerous, and more harmful drugs. Banning marijuana use is a good way to prevent a larger portion of our population from becoming addicted to worse drugs. 3. Marijuana use for teenagers will increase (See my analysis above) 4. A ban on marijuana is a justified instance of paternalism. The government ought to intervene to protect a citizen from harming himself when the citizen is not acting rationally or when the citizen cannot internalize the costs of his actions. Addicts can do neither of those things. Once someone is addicted, he can no longer understand what is truly best for him, just like any temporarily insane person, and so he needs a third party (society or the government) to step in and protect him from himself. In addition, it is hard for anyone to understand the long term effects of marijuana on their brain (especially after those brain cells start dying...), so the government ought to preemptively prevent individuals from subjecting themselves to those risks. This is the same logic behind seat-belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws. Thank you for proposing this interesting debate. I look forward to your responses! Zabcheckmate

Title: That we should not target children in advertisements Content: Thank you. First of all, we have agreement. Advertising may lead to consumerism, which is bad. There's no debate on this point. However, my argument that we should let children to get exposed to advertising, is for one thing; education and prevention. The best solution is (obviously is) to avoid advertisement at any cost. However, this is impossible. The reason is because due to modernization and globalization, we're constantly exposed to entertainment, including advertisement. My argument is: With the help of parents (and government), we should expose children to advertisement, so they're immune to the bad thing. Here's what I'm trying to say. An example will help: We're born as weak baby right? Since we're baby, we're given immunization. Those liquid that's injected to our body contains virus. The target of immunization is so our immune will grow up and defeat the virus. After this process of immunization, our body is immune to this disease. That's why nobody got Polio on later age like back in the 40s , due to this immunization. The same logic applies to advertising. With advertising exposed to our kid, bad things will be exposed to our kid, but with morale lesson given to our kids by our parents about bad effect of advertising, our kid is immune to the bad things such as consumerism. I'm not going to explain and debate of which parenting method is the best, since it's out of scope. Advertising is unavoidable, but once in our life, we must face bad things, so we learn from it and then avoid it and "immune" to it. You cannot learn which is bad and which is good, if we don't know which one is. How a kid will tell something is bad if they're not exposed to it. Parents are important in this education process. I'd like to restate this point. I like to make "pressure point" that exposed doesn't have to mean they have to do it. So if I say someone is exposed with drugs, it doesn't mean that guy uses drugs. It's just he know what is drugs.

Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market.[1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research. Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average. By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually.[2] So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue. [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004, http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf, accessed 08/08/2011 [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

Title: Individuals have a choice and right to respond to ads and their meaning. Content: Consumers have a choice to expose themselves to advertising through their own personal behaviour. Advertisements can be ignored by the consumer and deleted at will. Interpretation of the ad depends on the attitudes of the receiver. The purchase and consumption of beauty products is the personal choice of a buyer. How ads attract and influence is determined by individual beliefs and values of the audience member. Some feminists believe that institutional power structures set up a "victim" mentality in women and fail to empower them by placing dependence upon power structures to make choices for women.1 If consumers wish to embrace the ideals or values represented in ads, this should be their choice. Therefore the right to self determine one's consumer behaviour should be left to the individual. 1 Thomas, Christine. "The New Sexism." Socialism Today, Issue #77. 2003/September improve this

Title: Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency Content: Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.

Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: The term 'medicine' means a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. This might seem like an abstract problem until you need to get medicine for your dying child. Perhaps your child is seriously ill because of a preventable illness; the medicine he/she needs is 2-3 hours away by foot; when you get there, there's no guarantee that the clinic will be open or have anything in stock. And even if you could get to the clinic and everything was available, how are you going to pay for it? Thousands of people in the rural areas of Nicaragua face this problem on a daily basis. One proposal suggests that community health workers (promoters) could receive a portion of the medicine fee for each prescription. In practice, this leads to extremely negative trends, as promoters are tempted to over-prescribe medications to get more money, and only the wealthiest members of the community could afford them. On top of all this, the poorest of the poor no longer have access to medicine. Obviously the best option here is to supply the medicines for free. Prescription drugs Prescription drugs are a major component of the overall cost of caring for the elderly. By some reports, persons sixty-five and older spend an average of over three percent of their income on prescription drugs. That percentage is even higher when over-the-counter medications are included. Reports show that more than 53.26% of senior citizens are below the poverty line.This means that over half of the senior citizens are not financially well-off. Cancer,heart and respiratory diseases and diabetes are the most common and killer diseases among senior citizens.Treating these diseases cost a lot of money ad again ,the best option here is to give away those medicines for free. Hence, I believe that medicines should be made free.

Title: DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some... Content: DRM technology constitutes an anti-competitive practice which should be outlawed. On one hand, some forms of DRM technology prevent the free movement of goods and services which should be guaranteed under WTO membership. DVD region codes prevent genuine competition on the international markets, because consumers can't legally play imported DVDs, which would drive down the price of DVDs in Europe or America to Asian levels (where the DVDs are produced), significantly benefiting consumers. This is an example of 'market sharing' which is illegal in both the UK & EU under the Competition Act 2002 and the Treaty of Amsterdam (Article 81 & 82). DRM technologies should not have a unspoken exemption on what is just an practice designed to keep prices above their market equilibrium. On the other hand, conversely, DRM also overprices media only currently available in the West, meaning that it just isn't available in developing markets in South America or East Asia. This is a similar argument to that made by those who think that Indian pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to circumvent TRIPS in order to produce reasonably priced generic versions of drugs domestically. Further, the EU has criticised DRM on some software because it is impossible to legally disable even where not doing so “threatens infrastructure or critically endangers lives”.

Title: Adderall usage in college students without prescription Content: I would first point out that steroid use in professional sports is controversial and not ubiquitously considered unethical. Secondly, professional sports are naturally competitive where the university classroom is competitive to a much less extent. If one team chooses to use performance-enhancing substances that results in them winning, the other team loses. If a student chooses to use Adderall to study for a test and receives 100% it has no effect on the chances of any other students receiving 100%. As for my comparison to coffee I will first point out that fatigue is a mental condition, which is why many people drink coffee in the morning. Both caffeine and Adderall are stimulants, and there is evidence that caffeine also affects the dopamine system (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore drinking caffeine enhances mental performance, and by my opponent"s logic consuming caffeine would be unethical unless the consumer was tired and/or suffering from a mental condition in which caffeine would help put them "on an even playing field." "The fact that it is illegal in itself makes the use of Adderall without a prescription unethical." Would you say it was unethical to drink alcohol during prohibition? Slavery was once legal, therefore was it ethical before it was abolished? Unfortunately public policy is not always a perfect indicator to the ethicality of an issue. On top on that my opponent seems to be assuming that everyone with a prescription to Adderall have ADHD. Given the vague criteria for diagnosis, which reportedly leads to frequent over-diagnosis, there are likely many people with an Adderall prescription who do not have ADHD. Is it unethical for these people to use Adderall? (http://bjp.rcpsych.org...)

Title: Drugs Content: All drugs should be legal.

Title: Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States Content: There have never been any confirmed cases of psilocybin mushrooms being associated with fatalities other than individuals taking the wrong type of mushroom by mistake which would never occur within a medical context. https://www.erowid.org... Although the FDA receives funding from pharmaceutical companies, there are still some sanctions on which drugs are allowed to be administered to the public and thus, must undergo testing. That being said, it doesn't prevent the testing to be biased towards specific drugs depending on where those drugs are coming from and how quickly the testing of said drugs can be completed. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act which authorizes drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for drugs considered for approval is a prime example of this. The money generated by this act has been earmarked to speed up the approval process for said drugs. The part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets over half of its money from these user fees, and as a result, the companies that are very literally paying the FDA get an inherent bias in the testing procedures. The companies that pay these fees have their drugs tested more expediently and the drugs get to market more quickly (Marcia Angell, M.D.). Antineoplaston therapy was undergoing testing by the FDA back in the 1990's and the trials were sabotaged. Of the 9 patients included in the trial, none of the patients received the proper amount of antineoplaston therapy recommended by Dr. Burzynski and some of them received no treatment at all. The trials were also closed prior to completion and the statement "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons" was published in association with the trials. In 1999, a year later, the NCI cited antineoplaston therapy as a "complete failure" in literature. So, while it is true that the FDA does still somewhat do its job to verify that medicine actually works, it does so in a biased way that favors companies and corporations that yield more profit. This bias shows that the profit is more important than the results gained for the public in finding medications that work well and can help individuals heal. "Besides, if these methods worked, the companies would have been using this method, so that they could keep the cancer patients alive and make them pay for more drugs, right?" -Wrong. The companies wouldn't stand to gain any profit because they don't have any patents on the antineoplaston therapy. It is true that they could keep more cancer patients alive using this therapy and the patients may have to spend more money on the drugs... but that's not the issue. The issue is where that money would be going to which would no longer be the NCI or the pharmaceutical companies that currently handle the manufacturing of cancer medications. As I already cited in my previous argument, Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances." -It's not about how much profit could be managed using the antineoplaston therapy but about where those profits would go. The cancer industry is an enormous source of profit for pharmaceutical companies and to introduce a new method of treatment that would make prior methods of treatment worthless would be an enormous blow to these companies. As a result, many forms of sabotage have been used to keep these drugs from the publics' hands. The question here isn't whether or not the FDA and the U.S. government has any interest in providing the public with medications that work, but which is more important to them between profits and health. The inherent bias in the industry that allows pharmaceutical companies to pay the very institution that monitors and evaluates them is a clear indicator that profits outweigh ethics and good medical practice within their minds.

Title: All drugs should be legal Content: hollup what

Title: The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the prescription of antibiotics. Content: Extend.

Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree that modern commerce trade and industry cannot survive without advertisement. The most advanced advertising technology course gives new ideas and also acts as "Survival of fittest" in this dynamic decade. However there should be control over misleading advertisements. I believe that Advertisements should not mislead in any way by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise. More specifically, advertisements should not: 1-Misrepresent any matter likely to influence consumers" attitude to any product, advertiser, or promoter; 2-Misrepresent any information to mislead consumers into believing any matter that is not true, such as the source of the product, quality of the product, obligation (or non-obligation) in using a trial product, and others; 3-Mislead consumers about the price of goods or services; 4-Underestimate the actual total price to be paid; 5-Mislead consumers to overestimate the value or mislead consumers regarding the conditions on the terms of payment such as hire purchase, leasing, installment sales and credit sales; or 6-Mislead consumers regarding the terms or guarantee, delivery, exchange, return, repair and maintenance; and mislead consumers regarding the extent of benefits for charitable causes. If a presentation (such as a speech, documentary and newsreel) is substantially an advertisement, it should be clearly stated as an advertisement. 1-Advertisements should not misuse research results or quotations from technical and scientific publications. 2-Statistics should not be so presented so as to imply a greater validity that they really have. 3-Scientific terms should not be misused; scientific jargon and irrelevancies should not be used to make claims appear to have any scientific basis which they do not possess. I would like to emphasize the important status of advertising in our society. Advertising helps us to orient among the wide range of products. On the other hand they use unethical practices, such as telemarketing companies who call random people and try to sell their products by using any methods. Nowadays people have to be extremely prudent when they sign anything and read everything carefully. Advertisement is everywhere.

Title: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Content: The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Considering they force patients to take them exactly as prescribed even if they do not need them everyday, once a patient is obligated after agreeing to the terms of the "Pain Contract" if there are people who suffer from pain, they seek whatever comfort measures they are offered by their Dr, people become tired and emotionally drained due to the pain they suffer from. So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. I never thought to much about the use of narcotics and the damage it can cause the patient and their families until a family member had a total of 6 brain surgeries over the last 17 years. So her Dr had her sign this contract for the pressure and pain she experienced, at any time she could've been called in by the Dr for a surprise pill count and urine test, she never thought becoming addicted until her Dr called her in, the nurse counted the pills and asked for a urine sample, which she did, and was shocked by the Dr's action. Since she had good days as well, there were several times she could go an entire day without needing any,however this Dr informed her that she had violated her pain contract, because she had more in her bottle that she should've had, and because he had her on 2-30mg morphine, 1-15mg morphine and 4-10mg of Vicodin everyday except on days she didn't need all of that, and could get by with only taking 1 Vicodin for a few days here and there. He terminated her contract because her urine did not show any of the morphine in her system, and she had more morphine than she was suppose to have. About 2 or 3 days after her Dr terminated it, she started to become more tired, emotional, her headaches came back in full force and felt she was having flu like symptoms, and that is when we all realized she had become addicted and dependent on them, so she returned to her Dr. who gave an impression of "Just another addict looking for narcotics" and refused to help her even after she said she didn't go in for narcotics, instead she was looking for help to get through the detox she was experiencing. That didn't help and after 4 days of going through hell, she was rushed to the hospital, where she sat for 2 days in ICU, she lost so much weight and looked like she was on her death bed, finally a week later, she was discharged. Now she finds other ways to deal with her pain, and refuses to use prescription narcotics EVER again, all because of the pain she went through. Now what Dr out there can force narcotics on a patient regardless if there is any pain or not what so ever, and terminate the contract because for not taking EXACTLY what the bottle says to take. Can any Dr out there see just how one of the reasons prescription drug abuse on the rise, it starts right in their office for many!