CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The legalisation of all drugs.
My question for today is: Should drugs in general, that includes cocaine, weed, meth, ect, be legalised and sold to the general public?
Please try to remain as civil and not arrogant as possible in your arguments.
Cheers.
It seems to me that making drugs illegal has not decreased their use overall overtime by any significant percent.
That one or another drug is "down in use" thanks to the "war on drugs" nearly always corresponds with the increased use of another similar drug.
I think legalization would ensure "safer" drugs, as in less "bad batches" that make people OD, it would shift the money made from drugs out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of law abiding citizens, and it would be an enormous source of revenue for the country.
I understand the argument that "legalization would encourage use" in theory, but in practice I don't think this is the case.
Perhaps though a slow introduction would be called for. Instead of waking up tomorrow and making it a free-for-all,
start with weed, move on to coke, hallucinogens, other "safer drugs" so by the time your to shit like meth legal drugs are no big deal and you don't have idiots doing it suddenly "just because now they can legally."
In the words of Doug Stanhope: "I have the right to do whatever I want to my own body, and if it kills me, happy for me, fuck you."
Saying drugs should be illegal because they can be dangerous is the same as saying cars should be illegal because they are dangerous. Drugs are fun, they aren't dangerous if used properly, and anyone who is anti drugs and drinks alcohol or smokes is a fucking hypocrite.
People are connected, and narcotics are often something that hurt the emotions of those who care about us. It might be easy to say: "My parents drink so I can do drugs", but it's harder to live up to the reality of the consequences of your actions. Too often people flauntingly justify selfish behavior with libertarian ideologies, when in reality such an ideology is the hardest to live up to. Legalization is saying there is no common rule, and trusting individuals to realize what they are doing and to act rationally. You answer to yourself and to those around you, but not to the government.
Legalize all drugs as soon as possible. And don't put any regulations on them, either. The people have a right to choose what they put in their own body.
The War on Drugs has been an absolute disaster and ignore something even more important... drugs are not as dangerous as what the government and advocacy groups try to make them out to be. Some are, but that is up to the user, not some people that we put titles on as if they're the fuckin' wisest people in the planet.
Especially the distinciton between different classes of drugs has been proven outdated and unscientific. Alcohol and tobacco are still legal even though they are relatively dangerous and pointless. What is the point of making codeine more dangerous to people with medical needs by mixing it with paracetamol? Countless social, practical and financial problems are caused by the war on drugs.
Well, who will be interpreting what drugs are dangerous? The government and their special intrests will, which is why for most of the war on drugs weed, lsd and shrooms were listed as more dangerous than heroin, meth and cocaine.
Well, when it comes to total death rate, LSD, weed and shrooms would be at the very bottom. Weed and Magic Mushrooms can't kill you (well they can but the dose is so incredibly high its almost impossible to consume in a short time span) and the lethal dose for LSD is likely out of your budget, it would be a couple hundred dollars.
You can't trust the government to regulate these substances because there will always be special interests, bribes and corruption that will try to ban them for other reasons.
Legalizing drugs will inevitably lead to increased usage in the population and as a result, a decrease in the general health and quality of the population is inescapable.
Legalizing drugs will make them cheap and easier to obtain than they are now. There are a lot of people who don't do drugs for various reasons and legalizing them will simply remove a lot of these boundaries.
Some people, out of general principle, won't do anything that's illegal. If we legalize all drugs, some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
Some people want to try drugs, but are afraid of getting into trouble with the law. If we legalize all drugs, some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
Some people want to try drugs, but do not want to associate with criminals, dealers, gang members etc. If we legalize all drugs, they will be able to get drugs from a safe, legal source. Some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
Some people want to try drugs, but are afraid of the quality of the drugs they get - they may be made from cheap produce or have a lot of chemicals and other harmful components in them. Legalizing drugs will supply these people with a clear cut drug, where the components of the drugs are labeled on the jar it's in. Some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
The above list is certainly not exhaustive.
There is absolutely no reason to think that legalizing drugs will somehow decrease the amount of users or control the flow. Sure, it can add a whole new income for governmental funds - but do the ends justify the means? Should we condone the use of poisons just to get some short term benefits for long term illnesses (increased amount of users, the decrease of the general health of the population, increased expenses to support users who can't take care of themselves etc.)?
Legalizing drugs will also legitimize a lot of the criminal organisations and drug cartels that are manufacturing drugs right now. While their profits may take a dip - it's not very likely that it will be a big one. The legalization of drugs means that people no longer have to be bribed, no increased costs for the sake of guaranteeing a succesful smuggle etc etc. A lot of these extra expenses that go into the evasion of law are no longer necessary. To think that the legalization of drugs will hit the cartels hard is very misguided and naive.
All in all, I do not think drugs should be legal. I also maintain that alchohol and smokes should be illegal.
Legalizing drugs will inevitably lead to increased usage in the population
If by that you mean it might make people more open minded and willing to shake their cultural brainwashing, yeah. I don't understand why you think it's a bad thing.
Legalizing drugs will make them cheap and easier to obtain than they are now.
Clearly, you have never been under eighteen trying to get fucked. What I have always found funny since I started smoking weed was that it was easier for me to buy weed than papers to roll them in. When stuff is illegal, it makes it way easier to obtain because all you have to do is ring a guy up and meet another one down the road. As for the price, I think we all know the government would be straight on that shit with sky high taxes faster than Wiz Khalifa can roll a fat one.
And again, surely cheaper and easily obtainable drugs are a good thing?
Some people, out of general principle, won't do anything that's illegal.
These people are commonly referred to as fucking idiots. Good people break bad laws.
If we legalize all drugs, some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
So what, that's their choice, not yours.
Some people want to try drugs, but are afraid of getting into trouble with the law. If we legalize all drugs, some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users.
Good.
Some people want to try drugs, but do not want to associate with criminals, dealers, gang members etc. If we legalize all drugs, they will be able to get drugs from a safe, legal source.
Even better! Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Some people want to try drugs, but are afraid of the quality of the drugs they get - they may be made from cheap produce or have a lot of chemicals and other harmful components in them. Legalizing drugs will supply these people with a clear cut drug, where the components of the drugs are labeled on the jar it's in. Some of these people will try drugs and some of them will become consistent users
OK, you must have just clicked onto the wrong side of the debate, you're definitely arguing for drug legalisation.
Should we condone the use of poisons
Typical, brainwashed anti-drug rhetoric. What makes something poison? It kills you in high doses? Then weed isn't a poison. And I assume you don't plan on banning all medicines either.
Many drugs you refer to as "poison" are just medicines. Take scopolamine, normally used as travel sickness tablets, also used to trip huge balls. Ketamine, used as a dissociative anaesthetic, also used for removing your mind from your own identity for an hour. Heroin, basically strong morphine. Cannabis, not harmful at all unless used constantly, in which case it can make you go a bit weird, contains various cannabinoids that literally kill cancer cells and relieve nausea and pain.
Legalizing drugs will also legitimize a lot of the criminal organisations and drug cartels that are manufacturing drugs right now.
Which one is it? Make up your mind, a minute ago you were saying people will no longer have to associate with gangs and all drugs could be sourced safely.
All in all, I do not think drugs should be legal. I also maintain that alchohol and smokes should be illegal.
Do you want to make cars, fatty foods, extreme sports, and crossing roads illegal? How would you like it if I told you what you can and can't do based on what is "good" for you? Who are you to tell others what's "good" for them? Oh right, you're a fascist who think you can own other people's bodies, oh that's alright then.
If by that you mean it might make people more open minded and willing to shake their cultural brainwashing, yeah. I don't understand why you think it's a bad thing
Cultural brainwashing? Having a tiny bit of self-control and not catering to every hedonistic desire is cultural brainwashing? Besides, as I understand you want to replace that kind of ''brainwashing'' with self-induced delusions and hallucinations via drugs.
Cultural brainwashing makes one act civilized, drugs make people act like idiots.
Clearly, you have never been under eighteen trying to get fucked. What I have always found funny since I started smoking weed was that it was easier for me to buy weed than papers to roll them in. When stuff is illegal, it makes it way easier to obtain because all you have to do is ring a guy up and meet another one down the road. As for the price, I think we all know the government would be straight on that shit with sky high taxes faster than Wiz Khalifa can roll a fat one.
Legalizing drugs pretty much involve a 100%-500% decrease in the prices. Sure, the state will tax it but not nearly enough to make illegal purchases cheaper.
These people are commonly referred to as fucking idiots. Good people break bad laws.
These laws are designed to protect you and the society as whole. But if the people want cultural and societal anarchy, then there really is nothing to do about that.
Many drugs you refer to as "poison" are just medicines. Take scopolamine, normally used as travel sickness tablets, also used to trip huge balls. Ketamine, used as a dissociative anaesthetic, also used for removing your mind from your own identity for an hour. Heroin, basically strong morphine. Cannabis, not harmful at all unless used constantly, in which case it can make you go a bit weird, contains various cannabinoids that literally kill cancer cells and relieve nausea and pain.
Do you honestly think that people use drugs because of their medicinal value? Or do they use for the sole purpose of getting high and acting like degenerated idiots who laugh at even the most trivial things?
Which one is it? Make up your mind, a minute ago you were saying people will no longer have to associate with gangs and all drugs could be sourced safely.
They wouldn't be criminals anymore now would they? They would be companies and corporations.
Do you want to make cars, fatty foods, extreme sports, and crossing roads illegal?
None of the things you listed are intrinsically bad for the person and none of these things make you act like a degenerated idiot.
How would you like it if I told you what you can and can't do based on what is "good" for you?
If you gave me a good reason i.e that I'm damaging myself and being a burden to society - In that case, I would thank you for teaching me and showing me the right way.
Oh right, you're a fascist who think you can own other people's bodies, oh that's alright then.
Cultural brainwashing? Having a tiny bit of self-control and not catering to every hedonistic desire is cultural brainwashing? Besides, as I understand you want to replace that kind of ''brainwashing'' with self-induced delusions and hallucinations via drugs.
Cultural brainwashing makes one act civilized, drugs make people act like idiots.
It may make people act like idiots, but who are you to judge?
Understandably, if people are gonna be tripping balls in a shopping mall and disturbing the "peace" (if that's what they like to call it), then sure, totally understandable for you and anyone else to be a little pissed off, but you can't honestly believe the same applies when in the confinement of your own home, or a friend's home?
If I get high I don't go out of my way to piss people off in public, I chill out with my friends, which is what 95% of people do when they take recreational drugs anyway.
Legalizing drugs pretty much involve a 100%-500% decrease in the prices. Sure, the state will tax it but not nearly enough to make illegal purchases cheaper.
I agree with this.
These laws are designed to protect you and the society as whole. But if the people want cultural and societal anarchy, then there really is nothing to do about that.
Nothing to say on that either.
Do you honestly think that people use drugs because of their medicinal value? Or do they use for the sole purpose of getting high and acting like degenerated idiots who laugh at even the most trivial things?
Both. And there's nothing wrong with getting high and laughing at the stupidest of things, it makes life much more fun and enjoyable. Chill out man ;)
They wouldn't be criminals anymore now would they? They would be companies and corporations.
They could still be technically, but that's for another debate.
Having a tiny bit of self-control and not catering to every hedonistic desire is cultural brainwashing? Besides, as I understand you want to replace that kind of ''brainwashing'' with self-induced delusions and hallucinations via drugs.
No, avoiding any kind of new experience not intrinsically harmful simply because you've had the phrase "don't do drugs" drilled into your brain since the age of five is brainwashing. I'm overcoming my own brainwashing by learning to make my own choices based on informed decisions instead of doing exactly as I am told by a self appointed authority figure.
Cultural brainwashing makes one act civilized, drugs make people act like idiots.
Well, if you can't stand to change your perceptions and let go of what is familiar every once in a while, that's entirely up to you, but I think it's useful for exploring your own mind, changing the way you think, and having fun. Again, you bring a rather naive view on the effects of drugs, yes, some drugs make some people act like idiots (please define idiots, then when your finished, why this is a bad thing), but some drugs on some people, like caffeine, weed, small doses of alcohol, nicotine, might just make a very slight alteration in that person's behaviour, while significantly increasing their levels of abstract thought, levels of happiness or reward chemicals etc.
Legalizing drugs pretty much involve a 100%-500% decrease in the prices.
Is there any basis for this claim? Even if it's true, that sounds good to me. It's kind of similar to the way in which the UK government is trying to reduce alcohol consumption by raising the prices, it doesn't stop people getting drunk, it just makes them poorer at the same time.
These laws are designed to protect you and the society as whole.
So you're quite happy that a paid government official who effectively owns you makes decisions for you so you don't have to think? I can make my own decisions thanks, and if it fucks me up, that's my responsibility. Some laws are either ineffective, or are just plain wrong. Good people break these laws, the people that follow laws simply because they are laws are the real detriment to society, blocking the path to change and a better world.
Do you honestly think that people use drugs because of their medicinal value?
Erm, yes, all the time, hence the examples I quoted above. Yesterday I took an aspirin because I have a cold-induced headache, that was a drug I took for medicinal reasons, my brother uses a steroid inhaler for his asthma, my friend's father who recently recovered from a tumour has to take morphine regularly to ease his chronic back and neck pain, and people with bone cancer smoke, vapourise, or eat cannabis to restrict cell growth in ther bones, people with travel sickness take scopolamine pills to ease nausea, people undergoing serious operations are sometimes injected with ketamine as an anaesthetic. All legitimate medical reasons, all are apparently nothing more than "ingesting poisons" according to you.
Or do they use for the sole purpose of getting high and acting like degenerated idiots who laugh at even the most trivial things?
Yeah sometimes, it's called having fun, maybe you should try it. It's nice to let go of, at the most basic levels, the mundane concerns of the day, and at the most intense levels of psychedelic experience, your very concept of time, matter and ego. Just because you don't find that fun doesn't mean it's for "idiots". Do you also hold the same views about any form of sport or game, after all, they're only arbitrary periods of pretending that an object being in one place is better than said object being in another place?
The reason that people on weed or booze laugh at everything is because they are happy. When you take drugs that open the filter of sensory experience to your brain, you notice the beauty and brilliance of the small things you don't notice when you're in sober hunter-gatherer mode, as our brain has evolved to filter out the vast majority of irrelevant thoughts and sensations so we can focus on survival.
None of the things you listed are intrinsically bad for the person and none of these things make you act like a degenerated idiot.
Well then drugs aren't intrinsically harmful either. If you are smart enough to restrict yourself, fatty foods can be healthy, but too much can kill you. Cars are constantly poisoning everybody in the immediate vicinity as well as contributing to global warming, acid rain, and global dimming, all things which affect everyone. And as for acting like an idiot, all of the things I listed can do just that.
If you gave me a good reason i.e that I'm damaging myself and being a burden to society - In that case, I would thank you for teaching me and showing me the right way.
If I smoke some weed with some buddies, watch the pokemon movie, and then attempt to write an essay on the merits of sleeping naked, am I being a burden to society? I would argue that drugs have contributed many things to society, music, literature, fun, new philosophical insights, etc etc.
And personally, I prefer to be responsible for my own decisions and the consequences thereof, as I am capable of seeking information and making an informed choice based on that information.
All of your arguments are based on a flawed understanding of the nature and effects of drugs, to give yet another Doug Stanhope quote: "people who are against drugs have either never done drugs or were shit at doing drugs".
Oh, and another quote I feel is particularly relevant here, usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither and will lose both."
No, avoiding any kind of new experience not intrinsically harmful simply because you've had the phrase "don't do drugs" drilled into your brain since the age of five is brainwashing. I'm overcoming my own brainwashing by learning to make my own choices based on informed decisions instead of doing exactly as I am told by a self appointed authority figure.
My decisions are not based on anyone's authority - they're based on what is good and what is bad for my well being and for society. Drugs do not only affect the user, they affect society as whole.
This is where we fundamentally differ in our undestandings. You seem to think that the society exists solely for the individual whereas I think the individual is a part of a greater whole and as such, he has responsibilites such as the duty to be a productive member of the society. Drugs essentially decrease the health and longetivity of the society and can have great ramifications for the sustainability of any state.
Well, if you can't stand to change your perceptions and let go of what is familiar every once in a while, that's entirely up to you, but I think it's useful for exploring your own mind, changing the way you think, and having fun. Again, you bring a rather naive view on the effects of drugs, yes, some drugs make some people act like idiots (please define idiots, then when your finished, why this is a bad thing), but some drugs on some people, like caffeine, weed, small doses of alcohol, nicotine, might just make a very slight alteration in that person's behaviour, while significantly increasing their levels of abstract thought, levels of happiness or reward chemicals etc.
By acting like idiots I mean violent behavior and possibly damaging themselves and endangering others (falling, driving while under the influence, wandering on the railway tracks etc etc). For example, in our country winters are very cold and there is large drinking culture here. It's not uncommon for the drinkers here to pass out outside only to wake up with frostbite. It's tragic, but it's a sad reality.
While it is true that in small doses, many of these substances can augment our capabilities - it's just that I can't trust people with them. There are many who will simply overdose, they'll take far too much and may end up hurting themselves and others.
It's the same reason why I'm against civillian gun ownership. In theory it sounds great - everyone has a gun so everyone can defend themselves, crime would go down as there is a good chance of getting killed - but the thing is that there are also people who would use guns for not so altruistic purposes. People cannot be trusted. It may sound great on paper, but it simply won't reflect the reality of the situation.
Is there any basis for this claim? Even if it's true, that sounds good to me. It's kind of similar to the way in which the UK government is trying to reduce alcohol consumption by raising the prices, it doesn't stop people getting drunk, it just makes them poorer at the same time.
Check out the Rand study - Altered state. While it's only for marijuana, the study confirmed that legalization could lead to a more than 80% decrease in price and as such, generate a large demand for it. Imagine what could happen to the more potent drugs.
And about your UK example - the government has the right idea. Invariably it will decrease usage in the long run because people will have to decide what's more important - alchohol or better life quality.
So you're quite happy that a paid government official who effectively owns you makes decisions for you so you don't have to think? I can make my own decisions thanks, and if it fucks me up, that's my responsibility. Some laws are either ineffective, or are just plain wrong. Good people break these laws, the people that follow laws simply because they are laws are the real detriment to society, blocking the path to change and a better world.
It's not just your responsibility. By fucking yourself up you become a burden to society. The taxpayers will have to compensate your treatment, the doctors who treat you, the roads that are used to transport you and the food and medicine that goes into you.
People don't follow these laws just because they are laws - they're followed because there is good justification to do so. It's pretty tragic for me to see 12-16 year olds smoking their smokes and drinking their drinks which they got from their big brothers who bought them from the general store across the road. It will be sad to see them smoking marijuana and snorting coke. I don't want to see those blank faces and stumbling steps and then think ''This is the future?''
Erm, yes, all the time, hence the examples I quoted above. Yesterday I took an aspirin because I have a cold-induced headache, that was a drug I took for medicinal reasons, my brother uses a steroid inhaler for his asthma, my friend's father who recently recovered from a tumour has to take morphine regularly to ease his chronic back and neck pain, and people with bone cancer smoke, vapourise, or eat cannabis to restrict cell growth in ther bones, people with travel sickness take scopolamine pills to ease nausea, people undergoing serious operations are sometimes injected with ketamine as an anaesthetic. All legitimate medical reasons, all are apparently nothing more than "ingesting poisons" according to you.
Don't forget to mention that these people are in the grand minority of all users and all of them have a certified liscence to possess these substances.
Yeah sometimes, it's called having fun, maybe you should try it. It's nice to let go of, at the most basic levels, the mundane concerns of the day, and at the most intense levels of psychedelic experience, your very concept of time, matter and ego. Just because you don't find that fun doesn't mean it's for "idiots". Do you also hold the same views about any form of sport or game, after all, they're only arbitrary periods of pretending that an object being in one place is better than said object being in another place?
The reason that people on weed or booze laugh at everything is because they are happy. When you take drugs that open the filter of sensory experience to your brain, you notice the beauty and brilliance of the small things you don't notice when you're in sober hunter-gatherer mode, as our brain has evolved to filter out the vast majority of irrelevant thoughts and sensations so we can focus on survival.
It is sad when people can't figure out a way to have fun without drugs. It shows weakness of character and imagination.
Besides, it's not fun to see people vomiting in the streetcorner nor is it ever a fun sight to see people stumbling like helpless animals not to mention seeing drunk people fight for the most mundane reasons.
Drugs may be fun, but so is shooting a gun. Fun doesn't make things right, especially when you're affecting others around you.
Well then drugs aren't intrinsically harmful either. If you are smart enough to restrict yourself, fatty foods can be healthy, but too much can kill you. Cars are constantly poisoning everybody in the immediate vicinity as well as contributing to global warming, acid rain, and global dimming, all things which affect everyone. And as for acting like an idiot, all of the things I listed can do just that.
Fatty foods and engine smoke won't cause you to see pink fairies who'll lead you to the middle of the freeway.
If I smoke some weed with some buddies, watch the pokemon movie, and then attempt to write an essay on the merits of sleeping naked, am I being a burden to society? I would argue that drugs have contributed many things to society, music, literature, fun, new philosophical insights, etc etc.
I have literally had people shoot themselves up in their own apartment and then hear them laugh, shout, yell all night. In extreme cases they've actually gone outside and jumped on other people's cars. When you're high, there is no way of predicting what might actually happen.
And personally, I prefer to be responsible for my own decisions and the consequences thereof, as I am capable of seeking information and making an informed choice based on that information.
Most laws generally have legal commentaries on them. These will generally cite all justifications and studies for these laws.
All of your arguments are based on a flawed understanding of the nature and effects of drugs, to give yet another Doug Stanhope quote: "people who are against drugs have either never done drugs or were shit at doing drugs".
Yeah, I don't buy that in the same way I don't buy christian fundamentalists who tell me that the only reason I'm not a christian and haven't seen the truth is because I haven't let Jesus in my heart.
Oh, and another quote I feel is particularly relevant here, usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither and will lose both."
Lets just think critically here. You can use that quote to abolish all laws - he who gives up the freedom to kill for increased security from killers deserves neither.
This quote makes Franklin seem like an anarchist. I don't know about your political views, maybe you condone anarchy? If you consider yourself to be an anarchist, then in that case I suppose you are consistent.
