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.
Debra AI Prediction
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 (7) Comments (24) Votes (1)
Arguments
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.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    Drug use   social stigma   individual user  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
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?
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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 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.
"What is creating the problem is their drug use.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
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".
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 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.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra