CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
26
Ban US drugs Leave illicit drugs legal
Debate Score:49
Arguments:70
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Ban US drugs (21)
 
 Leave illicit drugs legal (21)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5386) pic



Drugs are the greatest US killer. Drugs are worse in the US than anywhere else.

According to the CDC, the leading cause of accidental death in the US in  2017 was drug overdose, which killed over 61,000 people. Car crashes killed less than 38,000 that year. If you include suicide, death by drug overdose accounted for over 70,000 deaths in 2017.
 Drugs are the greatest killer in the US.
https://wisqars-viz.cdc.gov:8006/explore-data/home

According to ourworldindata.org, the US has the largest share of it's population suffering an illicit drug use disorder (addiction) compared to all other countries. 3.45% of the US has an illicit drug addiction. The next highest country is UAE at 2.92%. The UK has only 1.66% of its population suffering illicit drug addiction. 
According to the same source, the US substantially leads the world in amphetamine overdose deaths and in cocaine deaths. The largest group affected by addiction by far is between 15 to 29 year olds, our youth. 
Drugs are a greater problem for the US than for any other country in the world.
https://ourworldindata.org/illicit-drug-use

If people do not have access to illicit drugs, then illicit drugs cannot kill people. Therefore, all illicit drugs should be banned in the US. 

Ban US drugs

Side Score: 23
VS.

Leave illicit drugs legal

Side Score: 26
2 points

The difference between drugs and lethal weapons, such as firearms and knives is that weapons are made to kill, injure or intimidate other people and not the bearers

Drugs are meant to be taken by pleasure seeking hedonists or the weak-minded who cannot face the harshness of life's realities without a crutch.

Due to the addictive nature and dangers of illegal substances being pretty well unknown during the 1960s and perhaps the early 70s the junkies of that era could possibly be forgiven for becoming hooked on drugs.

Since then however, everyone, even the dogs in the street know the nightmares waiting for anyone who is sufficiently stupid to take up the habit.

So, what we're seeing here is a display of nature's;- 'natural selection'' process whereby the stupid and weak-minded destroy themselves thus leaving more room for the strong-willed achievers to flourish and advance the evolution of superior human beings.

Leave the useless junkies to flounder and die in their self-made hell-holes.

As nothing in nature goes to waste, the rats can dispose of their useless carcasses, just as NATURE INTENDED.

Side: Ban US drugs
1 point

The difference between drugs and lethal weapons, such as firearms and knives is that weapons are made to kill, injure or intimidate other people and not the bearers

There are many big differences, but you are correct that is one of them. Another is that drugs need to be abused in order to cause harm to anybody (outside of allergic reactions etc...). Guns do not need to be abused to cause harm to others because that is their specific design purpose.

Another might be that overdoses almost always come about as a side-effect of addiction, and like it or not addiction is a medical problem. Hence, it's a bit like arguing that we shouldn't stop people building bombs because cancer.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

The vast majority of drug deaths are young people. Young people are known for risky and irrational behavior, even when they grow into perfectly functional and reasonable 30 somethings. This means that even with prior knowledge of the detriment of drug use, a mostly reasonable young person could easily fall prey to the consequences of drug use. The chances of a person succumbing to drugs is magnified if they grew up around it, making the consequences seem to them less dire since they have no positive outlook to compare it to. Their chances of pulling through a period of drug abuse is even worse of they have a genetic predisposition to addiction.

With all that being said and regardless of your feelings toward addicts; how might the US reduce the number of drug deaths?

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

Many parts of the rest of the world lack the drug prohibitions currently in place in the US. Yet drugs are a bigger problem in the US than anywhere else. If you want to let addicts suffer in the street, do you not also want drugs legalized?

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Mongele(210) Clarified
1 point

Without having researched the topic in depth my knee-jerk response is, yes, legalize drugs.

This would release the agencies of law and order to pursue other crimes and eliminate the gangsters who control the entire industry from manufacture to street vending.

Actually, this exchange has made me think, are there more sinister forces at work preventing the legalizing of narcotics?

The drug industry must be one of the most lucrative businesses in the world and its legalization would take $ billions away from the drug barons.

Anyway, the message we should be putting out is;- don't START taking drugs, and if you've started, STOP.

Side: Ban US drugs
Jace(5158) Disputed
1 point

as if addicts didnt reproduce lmao

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
2 points

According to the CDC, the leading cause of accidental death in the US in 2017 was drug overdose, which killed over 61,000 people.

If people do not have access to illicit drugs, then illicit drugs cannot kill people. Therefore, all illicit drugs should be banned in the US.

Hello A:

If your interest was in saving lives, why only include ILLICIT drugs? Is legality more important than lethality?? Truth is, the LEGAL drug, nicotine, kills 1,000's of times more people than do "illicit" drugs.

This also from the DCD: Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/datastatistics/factsheets/fastfacts/index.htm

excon

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
BurritoLunch(6608) Clarified Banned
2 points

If your interest was in saving lives, why only include ILLICIT drugs? Is legality more important than lethality??

What a joke. He has no interest in saving lives. He's trying to justify the completely preventable loss of 40,000 of them every year with the good old-fashioned "two wrongs make a right" defence.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

Preventable car accidents exceed 40,000. But this isn't about car accidents, it's about drugs.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

"When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance."

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

What do you do for a living?

I put all the smart things in bold and I left the ignorant shit in plain text:

Infinity is an abstract concept

On what basis are you drawing that conclusion?

Black holes are regions of infinite density and black holes demonstrably exist. Therefore your conclusion would appear to be wrong.

and is, by definition, greater than any conceivable number.

Yes, but that tells us nothing about why you believe it to be an abstract concept.

However big the universe is at any given future point, it will have an assignable number that represents that distance.

Yes, this had occurred to me. I agree. At least in theory.

However large that number is, we will always be able to conceive of a number that is larger.

That's because numbers themselves are infinite you bozo.

If you change the question and ask how large the universe can expand, the answer may be that it can expand infinitely

If it can expand infinitely (which the latest data suggests it can and will) then it is infinite, because remember we are also measuring across time as well as space.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

For this one, I put all the stupid ignorant shit in bold, just to be consistent with the original:

Black holes are regions of infinite density and black holes demonstrably exist. Therefore your conclusion would appear to be wrong.

"A singularity is a point in space where there is a mass with infinite density."

"In the real universe, no black holes contain singularities. In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance."

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/09/13/does-every-black-hole-contain-a-singularity/

If it can expand infinitely (which the latest data suggests it can and will) then it is infinite, because remember we are also measuring across time as well as space.

An infinitely expanding universe expands unendingly. That does not mean that its existent size is infinite. The infinity refers to an endless potential, not an actuality. Infinity is not a coherent concept as an actuality (see above).

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

You can only claim that the astrophysicist agrees with you by cutting off most of what he says. I'll provide the rest of the sentence you lying, willfully ignorant little fuck.

"A singularity is a place of infinite density, and that's not really a thing."

What?! Not really a thing?! Then what is it?!

"It just means that the mathematics that we're using to describe the thing have broken down.*

This astrophysicist must be full of shit. What does singularity even mean?!

"there's a singularity, which means that we can't do the math any more"

Wow... In guess that other physics professor wasn't lying and NOVA was right when they said most physicists see singularities as a mathematical problem with the theory.

How come I keep citing physicists and you keep citing wiki articles and philosophy? Oh right, because you're a willfully ignorant lying little fuck.

Side: Ban US drugs
BurritoLunch(6608) Clarified Banned
2 points

Additionally, he has specifically chosen only to provide stats on 2017, which looks like it may have been the worst year for drug overdoses since at least 1999 according to the data I am looking at. Fatal drug overdoses have more than tripled since 1999 according to the CDC:-

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db356.htm

This is just another example of Amarel playing pick and mix with data like he was in a sweet shop trying to get some free wine gums.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

I chose 2017 because it was the most recent year the world stat site had available and I wanted the data to be consistent.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

I looked at tobacco and alcohol as well. But analyzing death from tobacco use requires considering the indirect affects of smoking which necessarily entails a variety of other indirect variables. For example, an ex-smoker who has not smoked for 20 years before they get lung cancer will be considered to have died from a disease caused by their smoking habit. While there is reason to believe that smoking is the primary determinant, other things contribute to cancer. If a person overdoses on heroin, it is obvious what killed them and there is no other contributing factor.

If you look at my world stat source you'll find that tobacco is not our biggest issue compared to other countries. Many countries have a tobacco health issue. Furthermore, half of tobacco deaths around the world are people over 70. More than 90 are people over 50. Drugs mostly kill our youth.

As for alcohol, I found that the US doesn't consume as much as my personal experience has led me to believe. While it causes serious problems, it's not our biggest problem illicit drugs are our greatest killer.

Side: Ban US drugs
Jody(1597) Banned
2 points

It’s seems everything should be banned in the US you used to say swimming pools killed more people than guns now it’s drugs

Using your new position then that’s just 60,000 more deaths on top of the 40,000 gun deaths plus injuries

You admitted like most Americans that you have a gun for protection because as you admitted you live in a violent society , what point exactly are you trying to make ?

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

The Big Bang is a singularity or do you disagree?

Jody, you're a god-damned child walking in to the middle of a grown-up movie and asking little kid questions. You're out of your depth, as usual.

Side: Ban US drugs
1 point

Drugs are the greatest US killer.

Jesus Christ your sophistry is so stupid. Drugs are not manufactured and designed for use as lethal weapons. You are AGAIN trying to distort reality around your own bias by purposefully only referencing ACCIDENTAL deaths. There are not many accidental gun deaths because guns are designed to kill you on PURPOSE you fucking idiot.

If drugs are such effective methods of killing other people then why don't we arm soldiers with drugs instead of guns you stupid fuck?

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Jody(1597) Banned
2 points

He keeps banging away with the same bull shit , he’s preaching now at this stage and shows how desperate he is to push his agenda

Last year the idiot said swimming pools were a bigger threat than guns , what next I wonder?

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

Any given pool is statistically more lethal than any given firearm. But that is completely beside the point. The topic here is drugs.

If you cannot stay on topic I'll ban you. If you insist on being a hype man for others who cannot stay on topic, I'll ban you both. Again, the topic is the IS drug problem.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

This is a debate about America's drug problem. There is no mention of firearms for that reason. If I were to contrast our drug problem with gun deaths, I would have mentioned that in 2017 all death by firearm was under 40,000 according to the CDC.

That still leaves drugs as the greatest killer in the US with more than 70,000 dead. The fact that drugs kills on accident more people than a lethal weapon kills on purpose is beside the point, and doesn't serve your argument anyway.

Of you can't at least attempt to stay on topic (the drug problem), then I'll ban you.

Side: Ban US drugs
Jody(1597) Disputed Banned
2 points

Ahhh we are using 4 year old stats , got ya .....also I said using your new position then that’s just 60,000 more deaths on top of the 40,000 gun deaths plus injuries

Ban both save 100,00 deaths .....oh and maybe swimming pools as well as you claim they are more lethal than guns

Side: Ban US drugs
Nomoturtle(798) Clarified
1 point

Should we arm our soldiers with tobacco then?

Side: Ban US drugs
Jody(1597) Banned
1 point

You’re talking Bullshit .......

All unintentional injury deaths

Number of deaths: 167,127

Deaths per 100,000 population: 51.1

Cause of death rank: 3

Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality data (2018) via CDC WONDER

Unintentional fall deaths

Number of deaths: 37,455

Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.4

Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality data (2018) via CDC WONDER

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

Number of deaths: 37,991

Deaths per 100,000 population: 11.6

Source: National Vital Statistics System – Mortality data (2018) via CDC WONDER

Unintentional poisoning deaths

Number of deaths: 62,399

Deaths per 100,000 population: 19.1

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Amarel(5386) Disputed
1 point

2017 is the year used to be consistent with the world stats I sources. Drug deaths from all intents was 70,237. That number came down slightly in 2018 to 67,367.

In 2018, the year you are citing, you got all unintentional deaths right, but that's about it. Of all unintentional deaths in 2018, drugs still lead the way at 35.2% of all unintentional deaths (58.908). Second traffic, and third is falls.

In 2018 Drug deaths lead the way by a large margin for all deaths at 28%. This includes all intents and mechanisms (murder, car crashes, suicides, etc)

But again, I used 2017 because the world data goes as far as 2017. The numbers you got wrong in 2018 are likely due to you not using the site properly, just like last time.

Side: Ban US drugs
1 point

criminalizing drug manufacture and distribution removes legal quality control regulation, increasing the risk of bad drugs hitting the black market. criminalizing drug use also reduces the likelihood that people will seek help with addiction, exacerbating the issue. other countries also have legalized drugs without matching us rates, so the legality is not sufficient for explaining why the us has this problem. it would be more productive to target predictors for drug abuse - things like poverty, unstable home environments, etc.

all of that aside, fuck purity politics and state paternalism. its my life to abuse and gamble with if i want to.

Side: Leave illicit drugs legal
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

I can mostly get on board. What do you think about drugs that make a person inherently dangerous to others, the way alcohol does when one is driving? Drugs such as PCP?

Side: Ban US drugs
Jace(5158) Clarified
1 point

i doubt that there is any drug which necessarily makes a person dangerous to others. in which case, criminalizing drugs under that auspice amounts to penalizing people in anticipation of a crime which is not certain to transpire on the basis of how it has affected some other people at other times and under other circumstances. i am opposed to that, particularly as (again) this criminalization is unlikely to have an appreciable downward effect upon use and may even exacerbate abuse of the substances in question.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

What non-paternalistic measures can government take to address predictors such as poverty and home environment instability?

Side: Ban US drugs
Jace(5158) Clarified
1 point

for poverty, some options: end corporate welfare, end corporate personhood, break up parasitic oligopolies to permit self-sufficient local economies, implement ubi, implement a disparity cap.

economic vulnerability is one predictor of unstable home environments, so addressing poverty will have some positive effect in addressing that concern but not a sufficient one. where independent adults or youths are concerned, providing but not mandating support for the abused or neglected (as well as for the abusers or neglecting parties) to improve their condition at their own discretion is not paternalistic. some of that would follow naturally from something like ubi (e.g. access to mental health resources, housing, etc.), but additional options could include transitional housing, safehouse locations, and extraction services. where dependent adults or youths are concerned, id say that paternalism is permissible relative to the dependency of the person in question (i.e. their capacity for autonomous decision making and execution). for instance, i think paternalism towards infants is tolerable. by contrast, a teenager should have more autonomy in guiding the direction of the assistance they receive, including the option of petitioning for expedited age of majority.

Side: Ban US drugs
Amarel(5386) Clarified
1 point

criminalizing drug manufacture and distribution removes legal quality control regulation, increasing the risk of bad drugs hitting the black market.

If you are in favor of legalization for the purposes of regulation, would you be in favor of continued criminalization of unregulated drug production and distribution?

Side: Ban US drugs
Jace(5158) Clarified
1 point

no, i would not. i think it may be permissible to criminalize misrepresenting a product as quality controlled to specified standards where such misrepresentation poses a danger to consumers. extra-regulatory production and distribution should still be permissible.

i will clarify as well that i am not personally in favor of legalization for the purpose of regulation. i think that regulation is a less invasive intrusion upon personal autonomy than criminalization is, and it is more successful in accomplishing the paternalistic concerns of others (and i remark upon it as the lesser evil that speaks to the concerns of others).

Side: Ban US drugs
anthcasell(1) Banned
1 point

I disagree here. We have most cases because people are irresponsible, but that doesn't mean we have to take this away from everyone. I'm all for freedom. If someone overdoses - sorry, I guess you deserved it. Just check the limits online or somewhere else and you might avoid this issue.

Supporting Evidence: Bank Opening (www.bankopening.co.uk)
Side: Leave illicit drugs legal