|
|
Debate:Drugs, legalization of
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Should governments legalise all drugs?
|
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
Current drugs policy in the UK and many other Western countries is loosely based on the principle that drugs are criminalised in proportion to their harmfulness. Typically, whilst alcohol and nicotine are legal, a wide variety of other stimulants and narcotics (e.g. heroin, cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines) are deemed illegal. Usually the penalty attached to possession of these drugs varies according to their perceived harmfulness – for example, a “hard” drug like heroin attracts harsher punishment than a “soft” drug like cannabis. Supplying others with a drug also usually attracts a harsher penalty than possessing a small amount for purely personal use. Some countries, such as the UK, attempt to codify harmfulness by operating a grading system for illegal drugs (‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’); in others assumptions about harmfulness are expressed through policing and sentencing policy.
Policy arguments often focus upon how relatively harmful particular drugs are in practice, and what category they should therefore be placed in. In the UK, for example, there has been controversy recently over the declassification of cannabis from class ‘B’ to class ‘C’, with some arguing that new varieties of cannabis are so strong, and medical evidence for psychological damage now so compelling that the tougher classification should be reapplied. In the United States reformers often point out that possession of crack cocaine attracts much longer prison sentences than cocaine powder, and that different racial consumption patterns mean that as a result black cocaine users are punished much more severely than white ones.
Advocates of decriminalising drug use step beyond these disputes about matters of degree, arguing that any attempt to distinguish in law between different types of drugs is doomed to inconsistency. They also claim that the widespread use of illegal drugs across society makes the law look ineffective and outdated, and has the result of criminalising a large minority of the population. Taking a libertarian viewpoint, it is argued that the government has no business attempting to regulate private behaviour, pointing out that in other areas, such as sexuality, the state has been stepping back from intrusions into private life.
Across the world, approaches to drugs vary, from liberal policies in the Netherlands where many “soft” drugs (e.g. cannabis) are in effect tolerated, to the harsh policies of Singapore which hands out the death penalty for certain drug-related crimes. However, “hard” drugs such as heroin and cocaine are pretty much universally illegal. In debating this topic, the proposition needs to be clear about the implications of their case – typically they need to argue for the legalisation of “hard” drugs as well as “soft” ones. They may also wish to present some kind of model or plan whereby the quality and marketing of drugs is regulated (for example, in ways similar to controls on tobacco and alcohol in many countries).
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Motions: What are the opposing motions in this debate?
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
- This House would legalize the use of all drugs.
- This House believes that what a person puts into their own body is up to them.
- That we should abandon the war on drugs.
- This House takes its liberalism seriously.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- This house would ban the use of all or some illicit drugs.
- This house views drugs as socially harmful.
- This house approves of government regulation of drugs.
- This house views the war on drugs as a success or at least better than the alternative.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Morality: Is drug-use morally acceptable or tolerable?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Drugs can have a beneficial mind-expanding capacity. Many drugs are used by philosophically inclined individuals for the purpose of expanding their minds and better understanding and seeing the world around them. Hallucinogenic drugs such a peoti and "mushrooms" are commonly cited by users as deepening their understanding of the surrounding world. Given the complexity of the world humans live in, and the very limited ability of our natural senses to perceive this reality, it is not unreasonable to claim that drugs can have a beneficial effect in opening the eyes of humans to this greater reality. In any case, who is to claim that such drugs don't have a beneficial effect in this way? It seems to be a subjective matter that makes it impossible for a government to claim that drug-consumption is always immoral. Rather, the morality of drug-use seems to depend largely on the intentions of the drug-user.
- Legal drug consumption blurs the line drawn against illegal drug consumption - Psychoactive drugs are widely available and consumed in societies today. With powerful drugs such as Aderral, why should other drugs be deemed illegal? And, particularly with the emergence of "neuroenhancing" drugs to improve the brain activity of "healthy" individuals, it seems that the distinction being made against some currently-illegalized-drugs is subjective and blurry.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Attempting to alter with drug-use the God-given human state-of-mind is immoral. Humans perceive the world how they do for a specific reason; God or nature determined it is the way human are supposed to perceive the world. To attempt to diverge from this natural, God-given perception of the world is to diverge from the intended course of human-perception. This divergence is morally repugnant. It is also symptomatic of a desire to pursue more than what God or nature has naturally given to us. This culture of "more, more, more" is morally wrong. We should be content with our natural mental state and have the discipline to eliminate eliminate any discontentment with that state-of-mind without resorting to drug-use.
- Hedonistic drug-use is morally repugnant. Drugs are typically used because the "high" feels good or is pleasurable in some way. Such hedonism is morally repugnant largely because it is so base and too easily obtained. Deeper satisfaction in life can only be attained through discipline, intellect, and hard-work. The hedonistic experience involved in drug-use exists at the polar opposite side of the spectrum from these historic moral principles. Recognizing this, governments have a legitimate cause to illegalize drug use.
- The negative effects of drug-use make it morally wrong and appropriate for governments to ban. - The effects of marijuana-use include, dullness during the "high", increased appetite, lower sex-drive, and impaired short-term memory. Putting one's own body through this experience is morally wrong, and legitimizes state intervention against drug-use.
- Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. Consumption is wrong and should never be authorized. Legalising drugs would only make them appear more acceptable. This would undermine health campaigns by suggesting that drugs are not too harmful or even harmless.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Individual rights: Does the individual have the right to consume drugs?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Individuals have the right to control their bodies and consume drugs Individuals have sovereignty over their own bodies and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.
- Drug-use does not directly harm others, so it should be legalized - Indirect social harm is not a sufficient criteria for illegalizing something. By this logic, smoking would certainly be illegalized given the death-toll it has created. The only appropriate criteria for illegalization is whether drug-use directly violates the rights of other citizens. But it does not.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The state is justified in protecting individuals from their own drug-consumption. The state has the authority vested in it by the people to protect individuals from doing harm to themselves and others. The need to assume this responsibility is especially heightened if the individual is not aware of the risks, or is addicted and thus not making informed choices.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Consumption: Would legalization decrease drug-consumption?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Legalization would change drug consumption from a criminal to a health issue - Drug consumption is principally an activity that is bad for the consumer's health, like eating fatty foods. It is in the consumer's health interests to cut-back or quite. Therefore, the state should be involved in helping individuals quite, opposed to punishing them with criminal convictions. If the state directs more resources to helping individuals break their addiction opposed to fighting the "war on drugs", consumption can be more effectively reduced. If the state focuses on helping individuals quite as opposed to punishing them into quiting, the long-term effect on reducing consumption will be greater.
- Legalization of drugs will remove the rebellious glamor of it - Teenagers are often attracted to rebellious activities as their freedoms as individuals are expanded and the as the control of parents recedes. Much research indicates that placing limitations on teenage activities may actually produce the unintended result, encouraging the teenager to rebelliously disobey and break the limitations. Similarly, placing legal limitations on the consumption of marijuana may actually motivate teenagers to consumer the drug as a glamorous act of rebellion. This is flushed out by statistics suggesting that cannabis use in the UK has actually declined since its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Lower prices due to legalization of drugs will increase consumption This will be the case among all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. Addicts will still steal to fund their habit, because they want all the drugs they can get, and because addiction means they find it hard to hold down regular jobs. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.
- Argument: The legalization of drugs will increase consumption 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.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Regulation: Could/should the state make drug-consumption safer?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- By legalizing drugs, the state can regulate the sale - Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not. Therefore, by legalizing drugs, a government can help regulate the sale of drugs to control the environment of the transaction and ensure that the harmful effects of drug use are minimized. Government could, for example, make sure that the drugs begin sold are clean and not adulterated (“cut”) with other dangerous substances. This will minimise the risk to users.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- There is no such thing as a safe drug (regulated by the state). 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.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Taxing drugs: Is it a good idea to legalize and tax drugs?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- The state can tax the sale of legalized drugs and use the revenue for treatment programs - The global drug industry is massive, cited by some sources as in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Currently, governments do not obtain any revenue from the blackmarket trade in drugs, and treatment is difficult to justify as it appears to be spending ordinary taxpayers’ money on junkies. But, if drug-use is legalized, governments could tax the sale of drugs and use the revenue to advance treatment and fight consumption.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- It is wrong for governments to obtain tax-revenue from immoral behavior. Governments should not be attempting to obtain tax-revenue from an illicit, immoral behavior. If obtaining revenue were the focus of government behavior, than a wide-array of taxes would be raised on tax-payer's back and immoral state-sanctioned industries would emerge. The end (raising tax-revenues) cannot justify the means (state-sanctioning of immoral behavior).
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Crime/gangs: Would legalization reduce crime and the presence of gangs?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Legalizing drugs would eliminate an industry that drives gangs and criminal activities - Price controls would mean that addicts would no longer have to steal to fund their habits, and a state-provided drug services would put dealers out of business, starving criminal gangs of their main source of funding. The hugely-costly but unsuccessful war on drugs could be ended, starving terrorists of the profits of drug production. As a result peace and development could be brought to unstable drug-producing states such as Colombia and Afghanistan.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- An immoral drug-trade should be confined to criminal-agents rather than governments. Technically speaking, legalizing drugs will reduce "crime" in the simple sense that drugs will no longer be illegal and selling drugs will no longer be a crime. But, this does not eliminate the immorality of drug consumption and of the drug trade. Rather, it would simply transfer the immorality from "criminals" to state-sanctioned agents. While it would reduce "crime", it would undermine the moral legitimacy of the state.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con bibliography
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] References:
[ ] External links:
[ ] Books
[ ] See also:
|
|
