frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense.

Debate Information

Position: For
The argument I will be presenting here is that Drug users would be better served as people with mental health complications as opposed to criminals. When examining the arguments I urge to try and be objective; even if you agree with my position my opponent might have a better argument and if that is the case vote them. Now, let's get at it. 
PlaffelvohfenTKDB






Debra AI Prediction

Tie
Predicted
50%
Likely
50%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

0% (0 Points)


Against:

0% (0 Points)



Votes: 1


Debate Type: Lincoln-Douglas Debate



Voting Format: Formal Voting

Opponent: AlexOland

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 7 Days


Affirmative Constructive

Cross Examination - Affirmative

Negative Constructive

Cross Examination - Negative

First Affirmative Rebuttal

The Negative Rebuttal

The Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Voting



Post Argument Now Debate Details +



    Arguments


  • Affirmative Constructive | Position: For
    ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2667 Pts   -   edited July 2019

    Drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense.

    I contend that drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense. I do this for the following reasons:


    ·   One of the reasons why several people resort to frequent drug use is to self-medicate due to current emotional and/or mental health issues. This also happens with legal prescription drugs too such as Diazepam for example, as well as other recreational uses of substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

     

    ·  Criminalizing people for their current drug use leads to the social stigma which then leads to more emotional distress and other possible mental health complications for the individual user which then leads to the more drug use (I.E self-medicating) via the individual user.

     

    ·   When the fear of social stigma reduces Drug Users may very well become more open about their issues and seek help for them.

     

    In addition to the above while I also agree that drug users should accept a degree of responsibility of their own action’s society could at least not add to the problem by use of social stigma, and the criminalization of drug users. I would also like to make it clear that at this point I am not preaching that society should intervene and help, as well as assume responsibility for the drug user simply for not intervening.

    However, people of society do need to assume responsibility when they are openly preaching that all drug users are criminals that need locking; this attitude just creates more problems for the users and those around them.



  • Cross Examination - Affirmative | Position: Against
    AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

     What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

     Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him. " Ethics of belief - William K. Clifford

     It is true that a drug addict, at his current state, should be treated as though they have a mental illness. But I do not see how this fact decriminalizes the addicts. Even though their state of mind prohibits them from making the right decisions, they are the ones at fault for working themselves into that state of mind. It shows that they have poor judgement and shows that they are willing to risk their lives and the lives of many others for their own selfish satisfaction.

     It is no secret that drug use affects a person in a negative way. The need for more drugs even causes some people to turn to other crimes. And the state of mind they work themselves into is a really dangerous one that is not deterministic in any way. There is a possibility that drug use can actually cause a person to be more likely to commit crimes:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608072/

     A possible objection might be that this is only a possibility, and many drug users do not commit other crimes in any way. And for this, I would like you to remember the shipowner's scenario.

     Even if we assume that his ship did not sink but actually continued to function for even a hundred voyages; this would not mean that the shipowner is without sin. Because he would still be putting the lives of his passengers at risk. Likewise, even if the drug addict does not commit any crimes; this will not change the fact that he is putting a lot of other people at great risk. 

     Not to mention that the drug addict, by buying drugs, would be helping a bussiness that often ruins the lives of many people. So the drug addict is not only taking a risk for himself, he is helping the drug dealers sell their product to many other people; thereby raising the chances of other people using drugs and taking a risk. 

     Also, criminalizing drug use helps prevent a great amount of people from actually going and buying drugs. Responding to this with "We can just make it a crime to sell drugs." will raise some problems, as I will explain below.  

     For your case, another important point would be deciding what we should do with the drug dealers. If you decide that they are criminals, you would be admitting that drug use is a thing that puts society in great danger. 
  • Negative Constructive | Position: Against
    AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
     I will use this turn to respond to my opponent's arguments directly.

     One of the reasons why several people resort to frequent drug use is to self-medicate due to current emotional and/or mental health issues. This also happens with legal prescription drugs too such as Diazepam for example, as well as other recreational uses of substances such as alcohol and tobacco.

      A person's reasons for turning to crime does not change the fact that they have indeed turned to crime. The reasons could be looked at to make a proper judgement but these reasons will not be enough to get rid of the crime itself. 
     This is nothing more than an appeal to pity. Being sad or being in a bad emotional state is no excuse for putting other lives in danger. 


     Criminalizing people for their current drug use leads to the social stigma which then leads to more emotional distress and other possible mental health complications for the individual user which then leads to the more drug use (I.E self-medicating) via the individual user.

    When the fear of social stigma reduces Drug Users may very well become more open about their issues and seek help for them.

     This could be said about any crime. If we did not criminalize killing, for example, we would have more people turning themselves in because of regret. But we would also possibly have more people killing because it is not illegal.
     This method would indeed make more people come forward about their addiction. But it would also make more people buy drugs. So this point, too, does not prove anything.


     However, people of society do need to assume responsibility when they are openly preaching that all drug users are criminals that need locking; this attitude just creates more problems for the users and those around them.
      
     What is creating the problem is their drug use. 
     Saying: "People hating drug users creates more problems for drug users." is not a valid argument. This hate also prevents a lot of people from doing drugs. And the hate is justified because drug users are not only putting themselves in danger, they are putting everyone around them in danger. Becoming mindlessly addicted to anything can cause huge problems. And drug addiction is a very strong type of addiction which is hard to get out of. Who knows what kind of things they will do just to get their hands upon more drugs?
    TKDBall4actt
  • Cross Examination - Negative | Position: For
     My reply:

    Firstly, thanks to my opponent for accepting their responses.

     One of the reasons why several people resort to frequent drug use is to self-medicate due to current emotional and/or mental health issues. This also happens with legal prescription drugs too such as Diazepam for example, as well as other recreational uses of substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
    "A person's reasons for turning to crime does not change the fact that they have indeed turned to crime. The reasons could be looked at to make a proper judgment but these reasons will not be enough to get rid of the crime itself. 
     This is nothing more than an appeal to pity. Being sad or being in a bad emotional state is no excuse for putting other lives in danger."

    I did not give reasons as to why a drug user might commit a crime. I said and gave reasons as to why a person might resort to drug use, as well as other substance use such as alcohol and tobacco. My position is that the sole use of a drug does not constitute a crime. While it is possible that a number of individuals may commit a crime while under the influence the mere use and/or addition of a substance is not a crime. If we take the position that illegal drug use should be illegal because of the potential to commit crimes under the influence then we might as well do the same with legal substances such as alcohol. Furthermore, while I will grant that I am using emotional rhetoric here I will disagree that this is an appeal to pity. Even so, my emotional use here does not undermine the truth value what I stated; there is also psychological research that can back up position here too as to why people become addicts; Google Scholar has a plethora of information on this for instance. Finally, I never said that being in an emotional state is an excuse for committing a crime, and I agree it isn't.


     Criminalizing people for their current drug use leads to the social stigma which then leads to more emotional distress and other possible mental health complications for the individual user which then leads to the more drug use (I.E self-medicating) via the individual user.

    When the fear of social stigma reduces Drug Users may very well become more open about their issues and seek help for them.

     "This could be said about any crime. If we did not criminalize killing, for example, we would have more people turning themselves in because of regret. But we would also possibly have more people killing because it is not illegal.
     This method would indeed make more people come forward about their addiction. But it would also make more people buy drugs. So this point, too, does not prove anything."

    Substance use and addiction are very different from Murder or manslaughter. The sole use and/or addiction of substances is not harming anyone except the individual user. Also interesting to note is that it's statistically rare that anyone under the influence causes serious harm to others, despite the media coverage even involving incidence where drivers ran someone over because they were intoxicated with a legal substance such as alcohol. Like I said before; the mere use of a substance or the problem of addiction is in itself not a crime; It's psychological.


     However, people of society do need to assume responsibility when they are openly preaching that all drug users are criminals that need locking; this attitude just creates more problems for the users and those around them.
      "What is creating the problem is their drug use. 
     Saying: "People hating drug users creates more problems for drug users." is not a valid argument. This hate also prevents a lot of people from doing drugs. And the hate is justified because drug users are not only putting themselves in danger, they are putting everyone around them in danger. Becoming mindlessly addicted to anything can cause huge problems. And drug addiction is a very strong type of addiction which is hard to get out of. Who knows what kind of things they will do just to get their hands upon more drugs?"

    I would just like to reiterate what I said in my previous post in full which is the following:
    In addition to the above while I also agree that drug users should accept a degree of responsibility of their own action’s society could at least not add to the problem by use of social stigma, and the criminalization of drug users. I would also like to make it clear that at this point I am not preaching that society should intervene and help, as well as assume responsibility for the drug user simply for not intervening. However, people of society do need to assume responsibility when they are openly preaching that all drug users are criminals that need locking; this attitude just creates more problems for the users and those around them.
    I deem it necessary to hate the drug and the addiction; not the person. The substance addict already most likely hates themselves enough without other people doing it for them. Also, note that if you are someone that openly paints a bad picture of an addict regardless of what that might be the only person responsible for painting that dark picture is on you. Substance addiction is a psychological disorder that came about via other psychological factors, and this usually started in youth. And people with psychological issues are more prone to the effects of a social stigma than others. I would also like to say that if one feels they don't want to get involved in trying to help substance users then the least you can do is not discriminate against them.

    Finally, regarding putting other people around you in danger is dependent upon the substance and how much is consumed. Interesting to note here is that in the UK where I'm from the NHS spends huge sums of money every year due to people being admitted to Accident and Emergency because of being intoxicated vie the use of the Legal substance of Alcohol.

    In conclusion, substance users and addicts would be better served as having psychological issues which most of them do have, rehabilitated, and temporarily removed from where they are if they do pose a danger to themselves and others instead of having them viewed down upon as sinister criminals that need locking up with the key thrown away.



  • First Affirmative Rebuttal | Position: For
    A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

     What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

     Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him. " Ethics of belief - William K. Clifford

    I First would like to thank my opponent for this Analogy and rather interesting post by William K. Clifford which I will be sure to check out in the future. 

    It is true that a drug addict, at his current state, should be treated as though they have a mental illness. But I do not see how this fact decriminalizes the addicts. Even though their state of mind prohibits them from making the right decisions, they are the ones at fault for working themselves into that state of mind. It shows that they have poor judgement and shows that they are willing to risk their lives and the lives of many others for their own selfish satisfaction.

     It is no secret that drug use affects a person in a negative way. The need for more drugs even causes some people to turn to other crimes. And the state of mind they work themselves into is a really dangerous one that is not deterministic in any way. There is a possibility that drug use can actually cause a person to be more likely to commit crimes:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5608072/

    Again, thanks for the link which I will check out as time permits. However, what I will say here at this point is that being intoxicated with any substance whether it be legal or illegal has the possibility that the user may commit a crime. The probability and statistics on this however, I am not so convinced. Nonetheless, committing a crime is a crime; using or being addicted to a substance is not a crime.


     A possible objection might be that this is only a possibility, and many drug users do not commit other crimes in any way. And for this, I would like you to remember the shipowner's scenario.

     Even if we assume that his ship did not sink but actually continued to function for even a hundred voyages; this would not mean that the shipowner is without sin. Because he would still be putting the lives of his passengers at risk. Likewise, even if the drug addict does not commit any crimes; this will not change the fact that he is putting a lot of other people at great risk. 

    Like I said in my most recent post this depends on the type of drug, how much one intoxicated, probabilities, statistics etc among many other factors. This also applies not only to illegal substance use but also legal substance use too. If we are going to say that someone is a criminal simply because they use a substance then we could also say the same about alcohol and tobacco. 

     Not to mention that the drug addict, by buying drugs, would be helping a bussiness that often ruins the lives of many people. So the drug addict is not only taking a risk for himself, he is helping the drug dealers sell their product to many other people; thereby raising the chances of other people using drugs and taking a risk.

    I agree that drug dealers ruin the lives of so many other people; hence one of the reasons why I am actually for the legalization and taxation of some of the drug; this would destroy any drug dealers business, as well as having other benefits. However, I do not see how an addict buying a drug is helping to harm others or helping others to buy the drug. 

     Also, criminalizing drug use helps prevent a great amount of people from actually going and buying drugs. Responding to this with "We can just make it a crime to sell drugs." will raise some problems, as I will explain below. 
    I am not sure about where we should go in regards to criminalizing drug use. My point is that it is more pragmatic to view a user like someone as having mental health issues rather than a bad criminal. As I said before, hate the substance and the addiction; not the person.  
     For your case, another important point would be deciding what we should do with the drug dealers. If you decide that they are criminals, you would be admitting that drug use is a thing that puts society in great danger. 
    I am not entirely sure what you're saying here. However, I do ascribe that one of the biggest issues involving drug use is the actual dealers and pushers.



  • The Negative Rebuttal | Position: Against
    AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    I did not give reasons as to why a drug user might commit a crime. I said and gave reasons as to why a person might resort to drug use, as well as other substance use such as alcohol and tobacco. My position is that the sole use of a drug does not constitute a crime. While it is possible that a number of individuals may commit a crime while under the influence the mere use and/or addition of a substance is not a crime. If we take the position that illegal drug use should be illegal because of the potential to commit crimes under the influence then we might as well do the same with legal substances such as alcohol. 

     I think the point was missed. My opponent listed the "people turn to drugs because of emotional issues" argument under this heading:
    "I contend that drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense. I do this for the following reasons:"
     My response was trying to show that what he was saying was irrelevant to what he was trying to prove. He did not explain the relevance so I think the point stands. 

     If drug use increases the chance of commiting a crime, then it is pretty logical to consider drug use as a crime. It is true that at their current state, drug addicts do not have total control. But, as I mentioned in my first argument, they were the ones to work themselves into that state of mind. They had a choice of not using the drugs at the start. 

     My opponent makes an assumption about my stance. I never claimed or stated that other drug uses should stay legal. But deciding which drug is wild enough to be considered a crime is another discussion. My only claim is that "drug use should remain a criminal offense".


     Substance use and addiction are very different from Murder or manslaughter. The sole use and/or addiction of substances is not harming anyone except the individual user. Also interesting to note is that it's statistically rare that anyone under the influence causes serious harm to others, despite the media coverage even involving incidence where drivers ran someone over because they were intoxicated with a legal substance such as alcohol. Like I said before; the mere use of a substance or the problem of addiction is in itself not a crime; It's psychological. 

      I never claimed murder and addiction were the same thing. I just gave an example about murder to explain something about drug use. I never claimed that drug use should be treated as if it is murder. 

     In my first argument, I posted an experiment where a clear link between drug use and crime was found. It is true that there is a debate going on and we are not sure whether drug use causes crime. But, as I had explained, just the doubt is enough. Throwing a knife at someone and saying that "Well, the not sharp edge might hit him so he might not get hurt." is not an argument. Drug users are gambling on the lives of other people for their own selfish satisfaction. And, as I said, this addiction is so severe that it might cause people to commit more crimes just to get their hands onto more drugs. Drug dealers usually raise the price of their product when they see that the buyers are desperate.

     As I explained before, I accept that at their current point; drug addicts are mentally sick. But, as I also explained, this does not remove the crime. They are responsible for taking the drugs and slowly working themselves into that addicted state. They were not addicted at first and they still chose to use the drugs.

     
     I deem it necessary to hate the drug and the addiction; not the person. The substance addict already most likely hates themselves enough without other people doing it for them. Also, note that if you are someone that openly paints a bad picture of an addict regardless of what that might be the only person responsible for painting that dark picture is on you.

     I do not see how this refutes any of the things I have said. If drug addiction is bad, isn't the person also bad for willingly starting to take drugs and being a drug addict? It was his choice. 

     It is irrelevant that they hate themselves. They are putting other lives in danger. People have every right to hate drug addicts. And the hate is still necesarry because, as you said, it is the addicts who hate themselves. Not the non-addicts that haven't started using the drugs yet. The hate will discourage people to start using drugs. 

     If you paint a dark picture of a dark scene, what is on you is just representing reality clearly. You already agree that drug use is bad. Therefore, anyone willingly using drugs would be bad as well. People are still sane and non-addicted before they start using the drugs. Their emotional state does not excuse their actions. Just like how the shipowner's love for his craft did not excuse his. Just like how a killer's emotional state doesn't excuse his. 

     
      Substance addiction is a psychological disorder that came about via other psychological factors, and this usually started in youth. And people with psychological issues are more prone to the effects of a social stigma than others. I would also like to say that if one feels they don't want to get involved in trying to help substance users then the least you can do is not discriminate against them. 

     As I said countless times, if they worked themselves into that psychological disorder then they are the ones at fault.

     As I mentioned in my argument above, discrimination is justified and can be helpful.


     In conclusion, substance users and addicts would be better served as having psychological issues which most of them do have, rehabilitated, and temporarily removed from where they are if they do pose a danger to themselves and others instead of having them viewed down upon as sinister criminals that need locking up with the key thrown away. 

     

    Again, the same thing. They do have a mental issue but they worked themselves into it. And just like the shipowner is at fault for believing in his ship, drug addicts are at fault for deciding to start using drugs. Neither the shipowner's nor the drug addict's current state are relevant. 



     The probability and statistics on this however, I am not so convinced. Nonetheless, committing a crime is a crime; using or being addicted to a substance is not a crime. 


     I already explained why just the possibility is enough. 

     If an action causes crime, then it would be more than logical to make that action a crime as well; so that it is not committed. 

    Let's make an analogy and say that you are throwing the "Killing coin" and if the coin lands on heads, it kills someone. Does this mean that as long as the coin lands on tails, you are not commiting a crime? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that you are indeed commiting a crime because in every throw, you are putting someone's life in danger?



     I agree that drug dealers ruin the lives of so many other people; hence one of the reasons why I am actually for the legalization and taxation of some of the drug; this would destroy any drug dealers business, as well as having other benefits. However, I do not see how an addict buying a drug is helping to harm others or helping others to buy the drug.  


     If drug dealers are bad, how would selling the drugs legally would be good? What is the difference? 

     If drug dealers are bad, how are the people who are willingly buying drugs from them not bad?

     If you buy something from a business, you would be helping that business. Therefore if you buy something from, say, a drug dealer; you would be helping the drug dealer grow his business.



     I am not sure about where we should go in regards to criminalizing drug use. My point is that it is more pragmatic to view a user like someone as having mental health issues rather than a bad criminal. As I said before, hate the substance and the addiction; not the person. 


     You claim that it is better to view them as someone who has a mental health issue and I show why this method is not proven to be better. It has pros and cons and we do not know which weighs more. 

     Again, if you hate an action then is it not logical to hate the person that willingly does that action? An addict might not be able to just stop at his current state, but he is the one who got himself into that state.



    I am not entirely sure what you're saying here. However, I do ascribe that one of the biggest issues involving drug use is the actual dealers and pushers. 


     Why are drug dealers bad, if there is nothing wrong with using drugs? By admitting that they are bad, you are also admitting that drug use is bad.

     

  • The Second Affirmative Rebuttal | Position: For

     I think the point was missed. My opponent listed the "people turn to drugs because of emotional issues" argument under this heading:
    "I contend that drug use should be treated as a mental health issue rather than a criminal offense. I do this for the following reasons:"
     My response was trying to show that what he was saying was irrelevant to what he was trying to prove. He did not explain the relevance so I think the point stands.
    Firstly, would the opposition please like to state clearly what he thinks I was trying to prove and why it is irrelevant. Secondly, I have to admit that yesterday I had forgotten that I started the argument with "Drug use should be treated as a mental health issue" and was under the impression that I was actually arguing "Drug users would be better off served as having mental health issues instead of as criminals." Nonetheless, I will continue with what I started with although I will be clarifying some things about my position so there isn't any further confusion.

    So, I will first point out that my original statement "Drug use should be treated as a mental illness rather than a criminal offense" is rather a broad statement. More specifically my position is that generally speaking, frequent drug use would be better viewed as a mental health issue which it is than being seen purely as a criminal offense.
     If drug use increases the chance of commiting a crime, then it is pretty logical to consider drug use as a crime. It is true that at their current state, drug addicts do not have total control. But, as I mentioned in my first argument, they were the ones to work themselves into that state of mind. They had a choice of not using the drugs at the start.
    In regards to this, I would like my opponent to address the following of what I am about to say. If we should consider the use of a substance to be a crime because of the potential to commit a crime while being intoxicated then should we also consider the use of alcohol a crime as well? After all, there is the potential to commit a crime as a result of consuming too much alcohol. What's more, is that there are multiple cases of alcohol-related crime. So, in short, no, is it not logical to conclude that because the use of something has a degree of possibility to make one resort to a crime that "use" is a crime.

    "Substance use and addiction are very different from Murder or manslaughter. The sole use and/or addiction of substances is not harming anyone except the individual user. Also interesting to note is that it's statistically rare that anyone under the influence causes serious harm to others, despite the media coverage even involving incidence where drivers ran someone over because they were intoxicated with a legal substance such as alcohol. Like I said before; the mere use of a substance or the problem of addiction is in itself not a crime; It's psychological."
    I never claimed murder and addiction were the same thing. I just gave an example about murder to explain something about drug use. I never claimed that drug use should be treated as if it is murder.
    I know my opponent never claimed or said that Murder and drug use are the same things; I didn't say he did. But as my opponent in the above-quoted mentioned he did give an example about a murder to explain drug use. I, on the other hand, was merely pointing out that drug use and murder are not analogous to one another.
     In my first argument, I posted an experiment where a clear link between drug use and crime was found. It is true that there is a debate going on and we are not sure whether drug use causes crime. But, as I had explained, just the doubt is enough. Throwing a knife at someone and saying that "Well, the not sharp edge might hit him so he might not get hurt." is not an argument.
    Firstly, I have just checked the study and I have to disagree that a single study involving a link between Opiates and crime that evoked a doubt in a person's mind is enough to convince us that we should treat all drug use as purely criminal. Secondly, this may just be my opinion but I don't think the "Throwing a knife" analogy is a very strong one here, and one that I don't think holds much if any, comparability to that of drug use.
    Drug users are gambling on the lives of other people for their own selfish satisfaction. And, as I said, this addiction is so severe that it might cause people to commit more crimes just to get their hands onto more drugs. Drug dealers usually raise the price of their product when they see that the buyers are desperate.
    This is a very broad generalization. There really is not much more I can say in regards to this point unless we deal with each of the specifics a bit more. Things that need to be considered here is that are all drug users gambling on the lives of others? Are all drug users using at the expense of others? What drugs exactly are we talking about? Where and what are the statistics? What is the probability that this is the case categorically speaking? Also, shouldn't the drug dealers be the ones accountable for raising the price of their product; not the psychologically addicted?
    I deem it necessary to hate the drug and the addiction; not the person. The substance addict already most likely hates themselves enough without other people doing it for them. Also, note that if you are someone that openly paints a bad picture of an addict regardless of what that might be the only person responsible for painting that dark picture is on you.

     I do not see how this refutes any of the things I have said. If drug addiction is bad, isn't the person also bad for willingly starting to take drugs and being a drug addict? It was his choice.
    Firstly, if I don't refute anything it's usually because I either agree with what is being said and/or that I think what's being said is sound. Secondly, I will have to disagree with the last part of what is being said here; I do contend that all drug addicts do not will it upon themselves to become addicts in the first place. There is if not always, then definitely mostly always a cause of events that lead up to the individual to becoming an addict. Nor do I agree that it is justified in viewing all drug addicts as being bad people because they resorted to drug use.
     It is irrelevant that they hate themselves. They are putting other lives in danger. People have every right to hate drug addicts. And the hate is still necesarry because, as you said, it is the addicts who hate themselves. Not the non-addicts that haven't started using the drugs yet. The hate will discourage people to start using drugs.
    It is indeed very relevant that they hate themselves if someone openly points hatred at them and disciminates against them because they have a psycholigcal illness. The bit in bold again is too generic to make a comment on. And yes people do have a right to hate people with psychological illness but that right does not and should not extend to public hate and discrimination. Furthermore, it is the understanding of the serious negative impacts that frequent uses of certain substances can cause which should be the deterrent for non-addicts to start using; not the mere hateful attitude of the people that are drug addicts. 
     If you paint a dark picture of a dark scene, what is on you is just representing reality clearly. You already agree that drug use is bad. Therefore, anyone willingly using drugs would be bad as well. People are still sane and non-addicted before they start using the drugs. Their emotional state does not excuse their actions. Just like how the shipowner's love for his craft did not excuse his. Just like how a killer's emotional state doesn't excuse his.
    If you paint a dark scene about something the only reality that you're representing is a subjective sense of that reality.

    I am still going to disagree that just because someone resorted to drugs or ended up becoming an addict does not make them a bad criminal.

    As for the bit in bold, this is again a very generic claim and one in which the actual truth value of the claim is not known; it could indeed be possible that and even probable that a number of insane people also became drug addicts.

    Yes, an unstable emotional state is not an excuse for an actual crime that was commited.

    "Substance addiction is a psychological disorder that came about via other psychological factors, and this usually started in youth. And people with psychological issues are more prone to the effects of a social stigma than others. I would also like to say that if one feels they don't want to get involved in trying to help substance users then the least you can do is not discriminate against them."

     As I said countless times, if they worked themselves into that psychological disorder then they are the ones at fault.

     As I mentioned in my argument above, discrimination is justified and can be helpful.
    Firstly, I made it very clear right from the start that I agree that substance users need to take responsibility for their addiction. If they didn't then recovery and rehabilitation wouldn't be possible. I also think my post above is clear but I will try to make it clearer nonetheless. What I am saying is that people who discriminate against people with psychological disorders need to take responsibility for that discrimination as they are the one's choosing to discriminate. The psychologically impaired are not making the discriminators discriminate against them. Moreover, albeit while discrimination against people with psychological disorders might be justified according to one's subjective sense of reality it is never objectively so. Finally, in regards to this particular point, I will also contend that people don't will it upon themselves to become psychologically impaired either.

     If you paint a dark picture of a dark scene, what is on you is just representing reality clearly. You already agree that drug use is bad. Therefore, anyone willingly using drugs would be bad as well. People are still sane and non-addicted before they start using the drugs. Their emotional state does not excuse their actions. Just like how the shipowner's love for his craft did not excuse his. Just like how a killer's emotional state doesn't excuse his.

     The probability and statistics on this however, I am not so convinced. Nonetheless, committing a crime is a crime; using or being addicted to a substance is not a crime. 


     I already explained why just the possibility is enough.  If an action causes crime, then it would be more than logical to make that action a crime as well; so that it is not committed.

    And, no the mere possibility of something is not enough to conclude that it will happen; almost anything is possible; very few things are actually probable. It would be very odd if we lived our lives according to mere possibilities; it is far more pragmatic to think in terms of probabilities. Furthermore, the mere act of using a substance does not automatically equate to committing a crime, or equate that it will, has or always will do. If my opponent is taking this view then he also has to accept the consequences that we should also make alcohol a crime as that too can lead to people committing a crime. I again invite my opponent to address this issue of legal substances such as alcohol.

    Let's make an analogy and say that you are throwing the "Killing coin" and if the coin lands on heads, it kills someone. Does this mean that as long as the coin lands on tails, you are not commiting a crime? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to say that you are indeed commiting a crime because in every throw, you are putting someone's life in danger?

    This analogy would work if there was any significant comparability between killing and drug use which there isn't. So, with all due respect but I will continue to contend that this is a weak analogy.


     I agree that drug dealers ruin the lives of so many other people; hence one of the reasons why I am actually for the legalization and taxation of some of the drug; this would destroy any drug dealers business, as well as having other benefits. However, I do not see how an addict buying a drug is helping to harm others or helping others to buy the drug.  

    If drug dealers are bad, how would selling the drugs legally would be good? What is the difference?

    This would be known as two things - "The lesser of two evils," and "The forbidden fruit syndrome" of which the latter has a lot of research behind it (https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=the+forbidden+fruit+syndrome&btnG=).  I believe that the legalization of drugs would reduce drug-related violence which I believe usually revolves mostly around the actual dealers and pushers. Secondly, the government would not be pushing anyone to buy like the drug dealing pushers do; it's just there if people want it, the same with alcohol and tobacco. Anyway, this is probably best left for whole other discussion.

    If drug dealers are bad, how are the people who are willingly buying drugs from them not bad?

     If you buy something from a business, you would be helping that business. Therefore if you buy something from, say, a drug dealer; you would be helping the drug dealer grow his business.

    It is true that if you buy from a dealer then yes you are helping them to grow their business. However, as to view these people as bad people or not is a matter of subjectivity, as well as resting upon a plethora of different circumstances and situations.  I personally see an addict as not a bad person but someone that has a troubled mental state that needs help.

    You claim that it is better to view them as someone who has a mental health issue and I show why this method is not proven to be better. It has pros and cons and we do not know which weighs more.

    I will say that you have given me your reasons as to why you think this method is not better but you have not shown me any degree of objective and empirical evidential support that it isn't better. I urge my opponent to be cautious with the word "proof" here; individual reasons alone do not equate to any degree of evidential support let alone the epistemically loaded term "proof."

    Again, if you hate an action then is it not logical to hate the person that willingly does that action? An addict might not be able to just stop at his current state, but he is the one who got himself into that state.

    No, I do not deem it logical to hate someone just because they did something we didn't like. And yes, it might be that an addict that got themselves into the state but I still see that as no justifiable reason to hate them.

    I am not entirely sure what you're saying here. However, I do ascribe that one of the biggest issues involving drug use is the actual dealers and pushers. 


     Why are drug dealers bad, if there is nothing wrong with using drugs? By admitting that they are bad, you are also admitting that drug use is bad.

    I can't remember where I said there wasn't anything wrong with using drugs because that certainly is not my position. I agree that frequent drug use is bad in same way as I agree that frequent use of many things are bad regardless of whether they're legal or not.

    I think this will conclude my latest argument.



Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch