Poison the heroin and meth supplies? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Poison the heroin and meth supplies?
in Politics

By piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
Addictions can indeed be solved on a massive scale. When the Chinese communists came to power, their agents began going into opium dens and beating the inhabitants to death in the streets. Needless to say opium dens don't really exist in China any longer. If heroin and meth addicts had no idea whether the batch they got was tainted, and could possibly kill them, they might quit. Your thoughts?  



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • maxxmaxx 85 Pts
    I am thinking about the young kids who get killed and or poisoned@piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    edited September 8
    @maxx

    I don't actually ascribe to this method, I'm just wondering what others may think of it. Some will obviously die if they were to use poisoned meth or heroin, but the truth is, in the end, many lives could be potentially saved if it became apparent that poison has been put in the drug supply. The purpose here would be to sacrifice some, for the purpose of saving the vast majority. I certainly am sympathetic to your thoughts though.     
  • @piloteer

    Wouldn't work... You're assuming there's only one source of supply... If there was, there would be no need to poison it to begin with, just  shutting it off would suffice... Meth is a recipe of regular drugs, perfectly ok on their own and found everywhere in the market, you would need to poison every source of every ingredient and seriously endanger the general population... 

    In the end, it's like the death penalty... The fear of death is not a good deterrent... Maybe making it legal to shoot intoxicated individual on sight? It would of course lead to its own problems but eh...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @maxx It would only be their own fault though. They know it's bad for them but that's what makes them want to do it. 
  • The Chinese are already doing that with Fentanyl.  It doesn't appear to be stopping anyone.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    edited September 9
    @Plaffelvohfen

    All we would really need to do is poison a percentage of the drugs. It would not be cost effective to poison every single batch, but it would be counterintuitive because the goal is to save lives, not kill all the addicts. I would say the fear of death would be a wonderful deterrent. The Chinese communists didn't kill every last opium addict in China. Most of them stopped using out of fear for their lives. It's not like every addict doesn't care about their lives. If that were true, they would have already committed suicide by overdose. Of course, every fix is a risk, but I think most would want to stay alive, at least for the sake of the high. If we just enhanced that risk to 50/50, I believe most would chose not to use any longer. It would be a tough road of course, but I believe we as a society can find it in us to support them and unleash their new lease on life. The real problem is not the recovery, it's the lack of an incentive to want to stop. Sadly that lack of incentive is exacerbated by social stigmas toward drug addicts. We can embrace drug addicts with open arms, but that won't stop them. Only making it painfully obvious that if they continue, they most  likely will kill them by the end of the week. I find that to be a profound incentive. And if they do chose to use, they probably would have been able to be helped. 

    Just a reminder though, I don't actually endorse this method at all. I think Jim Jones could have come up with a better idea than this one.   
  • @CYDdharta

    I didn't find any evidence of what I'm talking about happening in China. Too bad though, that would be a perfect experiment to see if it's actually effective. I think what you're talking about is the fact that the vast majority of fentanyl in the US comes from China, and it is considered a poison itself.    
  • @piloteer

    Still would not work, it would spawn other supply lines, the market won't go away, if there is demand there will be offer...  After a few junkies get either bad trips or die, other junkies would discard your polluted source and search elsewhere... Or, as is usually seen, they'll find alternative drugs or brand new ones... And it would be naive to think there's no drug problems in China... Opium dens are a thing of the past, they don't have nice "lounge" where the aristocracy could indulge, but the opium is still present (coming in from the golden triangle at the southern border), nowadays China faces more heroin and synthetic drugs problems than opium sure, but all the new drugs found their way in and the black market is still very present...

    Even with China very repressive regime (understatement), addiction did not go away... A 2017 report from China’s National Narcotics Control Commission said there were 2.51 million "registered" drug users in China as of late 2016, a year-over-year increase of nearly 7%. A report from the Brookings Institution also noted that the number of officially registered drug users in the country increased every year between 1998 and 2016.

    The actual number of drug users in China, beyond the 2.5 million who are officially registered, is likely “much, much higher,”...

    As long as you'll think that the problem is about the drug itself, you will solve nothing... The problem is with the user, not the drug, that is the first thing to understand if you really want to fight addiction...  :/ 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I think you may misunderstand my method of delivery. It would be best to poison a percentage of multiple, or perhaps all of the drug supply sources, and try to evenly distribute the poison throughout the country. So long as we poison enough sources, and the poisonings are occurring nationwide, we can make the users wonder whether the stash they have right now, or any stash available from a different source, will kill them. If all the "occurrences" are happening in California, then the ATL crowd are not going to bat an eyelash. But if it's happening in virtually every county in the country, then people will think. We need to optimize an even distribution, and create uncertainty in every city and town where dangerous drugs are sold.   

     It is true that China is facing an addiction epidemic, but it's also true that directly after the Chinese communists came to power, their methods of stopping addictions were very successful. They no longer pull drug addicts out of their homes and beat them to death in full view of the public, and now look what's happened to them. It's like Vermont over there now. Effective action is needed.   

     I personally consider the drug and the addict the problem. My program will be the most effective because it gives the addicts the most profound incentive possible. The US government has seized enough fentanyl from China to kill 14 million people. And that's without the poison, that's just what that drug can do. If we can recirculate large amounts of confiscated product, and make it totally discernable from current products, but with the "supreme suace" added, I think we can get effective results. I know you may place the blame on the addicts, but remember, the goal is to save as many as we can. Some will be sacrificed, but in the end, many more will be saved.                        
  • @piloteer

    Since you'd already be denying people every right anyway, why bother with the hassle of such a plan? My plan to just shoot them until the rest stops, seems much easier and tremendously less costly... How is poisoning some, instead of shooting some, better? In the end, some will be sacrificed, but in the end, many more will be saved for a tiny fraction of the cost... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    That absolutely horrific plan not only makes me concerned about you, but it wouldn't be as effective as mine. An addict can always hide the fact that they're using. It's a common misconception that drug addicts are poor. Many white collar professionals, like lawyers and doctors, and teachers shoot up under their toenails so they won't leave track marks. If we don't know that they're doing it, we can't find them to shoot them. These people can hide their addictions, and we would never know it. If the very drug they're using is what kills them, it would negate any use for your einsatzgruppen like method. And again, killing is not the primary motive here, saving as many lives as we can is.     
  • @piloteer

    Just a reminder though, I don't actually endorse this method at all, nor yours...

    But if you are ok with : "some will be sacrificed" then who cares whether they're poisoned, stabbed or shot? Your method is as immoral as any other that asserts that the ends justify the means... If all you care about are result (less addicts), then my proposed method should be the better choice because it is simpler, faster and less costly... I look at it from a pragmatic angle...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Shooting may be less costly, or easier, but it would be far less effective. Even people who hide their addiction well, would still need to come to terms with the poison. In the end, because of how ineffective your method would be, it may not end up being cheaper. Ammunition is very costly, but Clorox is cheap. Your method may just be an incentive to better hide their addiction. Nobody can hide from the poison though.     
  • @piloteer

    Oh, my method would definitely be less costly... You didn't account for the cost of implementation of your method imo... The cost of Clorox would only be a inconsequential fraction of the costs, the logistics of your plan would be quite costly, infiltrating every possible source, every diy labs, etc to poison them is no small feat...

    My option appeals to human nature, I don't even doubt people would pay for a licence to be a "registered addict hunter", heck we could probably turn in a profit!
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    We don't need to infiltrate any labs. We already have the product. The DEA and ATF have more than enough confiscated product. All we would need to do is distribute it evenly across the country. We could just sell the poison product to kingpin distributors, and watch my glorious plan unfold from there. It's an airtight plan man.     
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @piloteer

    Are you sure the DEA didn't dispose of it? Selling it to Kingpins? You have contacts? They would pay to destroy their income stream? Even if you gave it to them for free, not sure they would bite... And besides, if there's no gun involved, it's un-american... :p lol
    piloteer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteer said:
    Addictions can indeed be solved on a massive scale. When the Chinese communists came to power, their agents began going into opium dens and beating the inhabitants to death in the streets. Needless to say opium dens don't really exist in China any longer. If heroin and meth addicts had no idea whether the batch they got was tainted, and could possibly kill them, they might quit. Your thoughts?  
    1. Chemical Warfare is a violation of not only many National law, it violates many international law. Poison the heroin and meth supplies. I believe the choice of words we are looking for is taint the supply not poison. The issue was overdoes and the effects of medications abuse will have on the choice of medication used with drugs being changed. Addiction is not being resolved by racing to a drastic end of a particular dependencies.


  • @piloteer

    Spoiler Alert.  This is literally the plot to the second kingsman movie.  Only difference being they poisoned all the drugs in the intent to kill everyone that uses them to destroy the demand and rid those people from society.
  • @John_C_87

    Obviously I'm not all to concerned with moral laws here. I'm mostly concerned with results. If we absolutely needed to get around international laws concerning "chemical warfare", we could easily just add more of the active ingredients already found in the drugs. That way, no matter how much is used, it will be a lethal dose. Fentanyl would be useful for this because it's hundreds of times more potent than morphine. Leave us recognize that the users are consuming chemicals themselves. If we just make the drugs they're using so powerful that they will overdose no matter how much they use, then we can't be found to be in violation of international laws, because the users are willfully consuming the chemicals themselves.   
  • @MichaelElpers

    I don't think it's very feasible to poison every single dose of heroin or meth, and the intention here is not to kill the entire population of drug users. The purpose is to make every drug user wonder if the drugs they're using is actually poison. Granted, many will succumb to poison, which will result in lives lost, but the hope would be for the vast majority of addicts to be scared to continue using. I don't see the morality in killing all drug addicts. I've also never seen or heard of the movie you mentioned. I hope the perpetrators don't get away with their terrible scheme. The intention here is to sacrifice a few to save countless others.   
  • @piloteer

    I didnt say I agreed with it also said what the difference was.  Just thought it was interesting how it applied to the topic.


  • @Plaffelvohfen

    It is common knowledge that confiscated drugs are stored because they're needed as evidence in trials. It's actually a problem for law enforcement agencies to have to find different ways to destroy the drugs after they're no longer needed. Add that to the fact that US law enforcement are constantly adding more drugs to the pile everyday. There is more than enough product at any given time to be able to properly enact my plan. My plan would be made even cheaper than the nightmarish shooting plan of yours (please seek therapy by the way), because my plan would offset some of the cost of destroying the drugs after they're no longer needed. The amount of drugs US law enforcement agencies have to destroy is a problem for taxpayers, and our environment, because they have to be destroyed without contaminating the water supply, or getting into the air because they could possibly kill people if that happens. I'm sure the DEA, and ATF, and all other agencies that have large amounts of drugs that need to be destroyed would be delighted with my plan because it causes less headaches for them. It would seem my plan is a win win for everybody, while your plan is just gross. 

    If you would like, we could pit our plans against each other and ask others on this thread to vote on them. But I would advise you not to take me up on this offer, because mine would win.  :yum:


    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MichaelElpers

    Do you agree with my humane approach to the plan?
  • @piloteer

    I'll say though that the irony of having kingpins paying to destroy their own money supply made me smile... ;) Still don't think it would work...

    I still fail to see how the manner in which you plan to "sacrifice some" matters... You are ready to sacrifice people, the method seems irrelevant regarding the morality of it... You poison them, I shoot them... It could be argued that a bullet to the head is more merciful than poisoning.

    I've no problem with your challenge, my plan maybe more gruesome but we could monetize the whole thing, Running Man style! ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

     I CALL ON ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THIS DISCUSSION TO VOTE ON EITHER MY HUMANITARIAN PLAN TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION, OR PLAFFELVOHFENS HEARTLESS PLAN TO ATTEMPT TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION. I WILL ALLOW PLAFFELVOHFEN TO LAY OUT HIS FRAMEWORK, AND CALL INTO QUESTION ANY ASPECT OF MY PLAN. I WILL THEN DEMONSTRATE HOW MY PLAN WORKS, AND ATTEMP REFUTE ANY QUALMS  PLAFFELVOHFENHAS WITH MY PLAN, AND MAKE COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON HIS PLAN. PLEASE CHOOSE WHICH PLAN YOU FEEL WOULD WORK BEST. OR AT LEAST WHICH PLAN WOULD BE LESS TERRIBLE. 
      @MichaelElpers
    @John_C_87
     @CYDdharta
     @Casp959er73
     @maxx


    Plaffelvohfen
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I'm not sure what running man is.   
  • @piloteer

    Oh, you're that young? ;)

    It's an old Schwarzenegger movie based on a Stephen King novel.  In that movie it's not about addicts per se, but "criminals" and they monetize the whole thing by making a big show on cable tv (it was made in 1987 after all)...  
    piloteer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    I shall check it out. Feel free to tell the public about your wonderful plan. The spotlight is on you.
  • @piloteer

    No because the ends dont justify the means.  We would still be purposefully killing people.  While understand the point I dont believe we can commit that act.
  • basically, I believe that education is the key and that not only starts at a very young age, it also begins at home. people who want to get high can always create new drugs; I recall those who inhaled ether from starting fluid or sniff paint.  there is and will always be something; so they have to be taught at a young age on the pitfalls of such actions. parents should also steer there children away from those who may be undesirable and put them into other activities.@piloteer
  • piloteer said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

     I CALL ON ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THIS DISCUSSION TO VOTE ON EITHER MY HUMANITARIAN PLAN TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION, OR PLAFFELVOHFENS HEARTLESS PLAN TO ATTEMPT TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION. I WILL ALLOW PLAFFELVOHFEN TO LAY OUT HIS FRAMEWORK, AND CALL INTO QUESTION ANY ASPECT OF MY PLAN. I WILL THEN DEMONSTRATE HOW MY PLAN WORKS, AND ATTEMP REFUTE ANY QUALMS  PLAFFELVOHFENHAS WITH MY PLAN, AND MAKE COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON HIS PLAN. PLEASE CHOOSE WHICH PLAN YOU FEEL WOULD WORK BEST. OR AT LEAST WHICH PLAN WOULD BE LESS TERRIBLE. 
      @MichaelElpers
    @John_C_87
     @CYDdharta
     @Casp959er73
    @Plaffelvohfen
    The plan will not work it has no account for new addition.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1162 Pts
    edited September 12
    piloteer said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

     I CALL ON ALL PARTICIPANTS OF THIS DISCUSSION TO VOTE ON EITHER MY HUMANITARIAN PLAN TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION, OR PLAFFELVOHFENS HEARTLESS PLAN TO ATTEMPT TO VANQUISH DRUG ADDICTION. I WILL ALLOW PLAFFELVOHFEN TO LAY OUT HIS FRAMEWORK, AND CALL INTO QUESTION ANY ASPECT OF MY PLAN. I WILL THEN DEMONSTRATE HOW MY PLAN WORKS, AND ATTEMP REFUTE ANY QUALMS  PLAFFELVOHFENHAS WITH MY PLAN, AND MAKE COUNTER ARGUMENTS ON HIS PLAN. PLEASE CHOOSE WHICH PLAN YOU FEEL WOULD WORK BEST. OR AT LEAST WHICH PLAN WOULD BE LESS TERRIBLE. 
      @MichaelElpers
    @John_C_87
     @CYDdharta
     @Casp959er73
     @maxx




    @Plaffelvohfen 's idea delivers more immediate results, however it comes at a psychological cost to the people who would be carrying it out.  @Piloteer 's idea avoids those costs and also avoids the possibility that a non-junkie will be killed in the process, which was the problem in The Running Man.  Of the two, I have to give the edge to @Piloteer.

  •  @Plaffelvohfen

    Uh oh Plaff. It looks like I'm up by a point. There are still 4 voters who haven't voted for either of us though. You might want to appeal to them. Thank You "@CYDdharta for your support.   
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @piloteer

    I will! Later this evening, gotta go out atm! ;) 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    No rush. I actually think both plans are pretty bad, and I don't think I'll be all that proud for winning this contest. But I will win :D
    Plaffelvohfen
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 670 Pts
    edited September 12
    @piloteer

    I definitely agree that both plans are bad... But I've not given up on winning! lol ;) 
    piloteerJohn_C_87
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteer said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    No rush. I actually think both plans are pretty bad, and I don't think I'll be all that proud for winning this contest. But I will win :D
    So, how is poisoning a poison bad? I'm thinking its just drastic overkill in the most basic way of understanding. 
  • @John_C_87

    Let's say the plan was to forego any poisoning, and instead, we just shoot all the addicts. Given the choice between shooting or poisoning, which plan would you consider less egregious?     
  • The are equal when limited by the single event of lethal force. Which would we consider less bad being shoot with drugs or gun by a drug addict? 

    Neither is bad as long as its you performing the task, after a public threat I can simple tell on you. good way to create work by abuse of lethal force.:'(
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    edited September 14
    @John_C_87

    Ok, got it. But just in case I didn't understand you at all, whose idea do you like better? Your ol' pal pilot, or dark and menacing "@Plaffelvohfen who listens to King Crimson, the most dark and menacing progressive rock band  :flushed: >:)
  • @piloteer ;
    Don't Know yet. It kind of rests on if plaffelvohfen not only listens to King Crimson, watched  the movie running man based on Steven King, but had also seen Schwarzenegger comedy Hercules. This combination is hard to vote against.
    What kind of music do you listen to again?
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    edited September 14
    @John_C_87

    My favorite is King Crimson, featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger which they collaborated on for the movie Hercules, and it was later remixed by Steven King for the movie running man. It's some really obscure stuff that can't be found any more. Only a collector would have any known vinyl copies, and it never made it to cassette or CD, and it's not on YouTube, so it would probably be a waste of your time to try and find it. It's called KSK, or King Schwarzenegger and King. So Ya, that's what I listen to.     
  • John_C_87John_C_87 207 Pts
    @piloteer ;

    Ah that one. No. No it was on You tube but got pulled in less than an hour, a guy I hardly knew at a gas station had seen been in once, while on break had video on it, his buds’ phone recorded it and he e-mailed it to himself. So day at the pumps. Sadly, shortly after showing it to me he records a video of his girl in a bikini. That he hasn’t shown me and won't That’s How I know it true and why I don't go back for gas there anymore.  

    Steven King is he related to Billie Jean King they both have glasses on the internet and that’s genetic? Just wondering...……….


  • John_C_87John_C_87 207 Pts

     

    Plaffelvohefen

    Paraquat?

  • John_C_87John_C_87 207 Pts

    piloteer

    Paraquat?


  • piloteerpiloteer 467 Pts
    @John_C_87

    If you're referring to a substance that could be used as a poison in the drugs, I suppose paraquat could be used, but I would just propose using the drugs potency itself. This could help to get rid of some of the drug supply the federal government is in possession of from drug seizure. If we used a lethal dose of fentynal in the drugs, the potential victims wouldn't suffer. 

    Steven King and Billy Jean King are of no family relation. Billy Jean King was married, so her last name was the name of her husbands family. Steven and Billy do bare a striking resemblance however.   
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch