Efficiency[ edit ] Drug laws are effective[ edit ] Supporters of prohibition claim that drug laws have a successful track record suppressing illicit drug use since they were introduced years ago. With illicit drug use peaking in the s in the United States, the "Just Say No" campaign, initiated under the patronage of Nancy Reagan, coincided with recent past month illicit drug use decreases from Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average.
Deterrence Con acknowledges that the criminalization of drugs isn't a deterrence for most people. Why implement a counter-productive policy that's ineffective by my opponent's own admission? Next Con notes that his statistic isn't referring only to HS seniors but those aged 12 - My point still stands considering it's limiting the statistic to those no older than 17, when many people don't smoke pot until after HS.
Nevertheless I concede my mistake; I also provided the statistic for HS seniors Con's mistake confused me. However, my point still stands with the right general figure. My argument was that harsher penalties do not necessarily lead to a decrease in drug abuse.
Con mentioned that harsher punishments for marijuana crimes were enacted in Con then advocates "dropping my source" since it's "heavily predicated on teens voluntarily reporting marijuana use. Since that's the only demographic he's talked about thus far, that would be ALL of his statistics reminder: Availability Con's argument was that higher availability of drugs would result in a plethora of problems.
On the contrary I provided evidence that legalizing drugs in other places led to less crime, violence, disease and death as a result of these policies. Con did not respond to this, and instead mentioned that only those over 25 received free heroin from the government, etc.
That might be true, but has nothing to do with my point: In fact many see positive results. I never said that we shouldn't implement policies in a similar fashion to the other successful models I mentioned, so Con's rebuttal is negated.
Financial Burden First, I pointed out that we live in a country which socializes costs. Welfare recipients are also a financial burden yet are still entitled to their personal liberties just as drug users are despite their burden.
Second, get rid of socialized medicine and this problem becomes obsolete. Third, you can heavily tax drugs to compensate for the cost, just as the government does with cigarettes for the same reason .
Moreover, Con tries to downplay my point insisting that more people get sick from drugs than anything else. However, the number one leading cause of death in the U. This means that people's personal choices very much pertain to their medical needs, and the system does not discriminate.
You can either rectify the system to where this burden isn't an issue, or you can acknowledge that it's not problematic to our current system.
Finally and most important on this point, Con completely ignored the argument from economist Jeffrey Miron that legalizing drugs would inject Hurting Families Extend my arguments; this has nothing to do with the government.
Work Productivity Con never details what specific illegal drugs the statistic is referring to so extend that point. Also extend my point that an employer can fire a bad employee or one in violation of their contract.
Con says the government should take protective measures to ensure they don't cause harm to begin with.
It's obvious we cannot run a functional legal system that way. Con never argued against my point and instead just stated his counter-point - not why his point is preferable. There's nothing for me to respond to. Role of Government Con says the govt. Extend my 2A - 2C points.
Impact of the WOD A. In other words he would do nothing to prevent the growing, transport, use, confiscation or penalty for drugs?Regulation of tobacco by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began in with the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco the FDA played no role in the regulation of tobacco products, and regulations were controlled through a combination of state and congressional regulation.
but not completely, in favor of the United. Drug Free Australia gives the example that in one in every nine children under the age of 18 in the United States lived with at least one drug dependent or drug abusing parent.
million children in the United States live with at least one parent who was dependent on or abused illicit drugs.
Theory, Evidence and Examples of FDA Harm. used data on drug disasters in countries with less-stringent drug regulations than the United States to create a ballpark estimate of the number of lives saved by the extra scrutiny induced by FDA requirements.
He then computed a similar ballpark figure for the number of lives lost owing to drug. There is more public support for marijuana law reform than ever before with new polls showing more than half the country is in favor of legalizing marijuana. The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) believes marijuana should be removed from the criminal justice system and regulated like alcohol and tobacco.
Current Marijuana Laws in the U.S.
The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers. The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use. such as the rd Congress favor drug criminalization and supply sided efforts, The War on Drugs.
Dish Network draws into focus is an increasingly difficult element of drug policy (and law) in the United States.
States are legalizing the use of medical and recreational marijuana.