Behaviour???
Registered Member
I would like to stand aginst the legalisation of drugs, If there is any who would like to stand for legalisation of drugs...Please Pm me
Thanks
B???
Thanks
B???
Proposal: Legalisation of drugs
- Thread starter Behaviour???
- Start date
- Status
Behaviour???
Registered Member
I'm for the decriminalization of certain drugs. That means that you don't go to jail for years just because you are found carrying a few joints of weed or a gram of coke. To many people today are in jail because they made a mistake once and that just shouldn't be happening, at least to me. If you are found carrying more than an ounce of weed or more than 5 grams of coke then you should be forgiven a fine and told that next time you are found carrying the fines will be much greater and jail would be coming your way.
I usually just write them.
Anyhow, still a problem because it puts every illegal drugs in one group, although it should be treated one by one. Completely different arguments are for/against heroin and marijuana.
Also I could see that opium (since once it was) could be a legalized drug or at least a decent case made for it....
Anyhow, still a problem because it puts every illegal drugs in one group, although it should be treated one by one. Completely different arguments are for/against heroin and marijuana.
Also I could see that opium (since once it was) could be a legalized drug or at least a decent case made for it....
I'll debate you B.
I will need to agree upon a format in which to follow. I've outlined a format to follow below. I'm open to any changes or others ideas. I think this make makes it easy, because we will prove a simple point at a time. This should force us to be well organized resulting in clearer and much more challeging argument.
Debate Format
Choose Referee
Parties must agree upon a referee. The refs job is:
- settle arguments of word meaning if parties can't agree themselves
- keep parties from digressing from a point that must be proven in Supporting Arguments (see Supporting Arguments below)
- decides when to end a Supporting Argument and gives point to winner
- decides who wins the Final Argument
Opening Arguments
Two opening arguments are needed, one from each party. Each argument should be concise, just a generalization of what is to be proven, but does not need detailed supporting arguments.
Supporting Arguments
A series of arguments are made that support the opening argument. Only one supporting argument may be made at one time. This argument will go on until the ref ends argumentation at which point the ref will choose a winner.
A Supporting Argument must be a paragraph containing one idea that supports the general supporting argument. Each sentence of the paragraph is a premise, except for the last sentence, which is the conclusion. Each premise builds logically toward a conclusion. The last sentence must be a conclusion. The conclusion must be the general claim being made for the Supporting Argument. Each response a party makes follow this premise to conclusion format.
Once a point is proven, the ref will end the argument and give a point to the wining argument. This brings the round to an end. The next round may begin, and another supporting argument is made. A loosing argument may not be used later to form a premise of another supporting argument.
Final Argument
A final argument is made by each party. No arguments that were lost may be used in the Final Argument.
Judgement
The ref judges from the concluding arguments who is the logical winner of the debate.
I will need to agree upon a format in which to follow. I've outlined a format to follow below. I'm open to any changes or others ideas. I think this make makes it easy, because we will prove a simple point at a time. This should force us to be well organized resulting in clearer and much more challeging argument.
Debate Format
Choose Referee
Parties must agree upon a referee. The refs job is:
- settle arguments of word meaning if parties can't agree themselves
- keep parties from digressing from a point that must be proven in Supporting Arguments (see Supporting Arguments below)
- decides when to end a Supporting Argument and gives point to winner
- decides who wins the Final Argument
Opening Arguments
Two opening arguments are needed, one from each party. Each argument should be concise, just a generalization of what is to be proven, but does not need detailed supporting arguments.
Supporting Arguments
A series of arguments are made that support the opening argument. Only one supporting argument may be made at one time. This argument will go on until the ref ends argumentation at which point the ref will choose a winner.
A Supporting Argument must be a paragraph containing one idea that supports the general supporting argument. Each sentence of the paragraph is a premise, except for the last sentence, which is the conclusion. Each premise builds logically toward a conclusion. The last sentence must be a conclusion. The conclusion must be the general claim being made for the Supporting Argument. Each response a party makes follow this premise to conclusion format.
Once a point is proven, the ref will end the argument and give a point to the wining argument. This brings the round to an end. The next round may begin, and another supporting argument is made. A loosing argument may not be used later to form a premise of another supporting argument.
Final Argument
A final argument is made by each party. No arguments that were lost may be used in the Final Argument.
Judgement
The ref judges from the concluding arguments who is the logical winner of the debate.
Last edited:
What about drugs such as GHB and Rohypnol? Will they be included?
So when you make a drug illegal you create a sub culture of criminals that we didn't have before. You also put criminals in control of the drugs and there distribution. This creates the major gang problem we have in every city now. It also creates big problems for other countries with the formation of large drug cartels. So we have to respond with more laws a vastly larger police force and correctional system of jails and prisons.
I believe our countries strategy in the war on drugs is completely the wrong approach. There's just to much money to be made. The best solution is one that takes the money out of the hands of the criminals. This can be done very easily by going to a mostly cashless society. It's been talked about for years now and yet not much progress. Illegal drugs are a cash based business and would be very difficult to maintain in a cashless society. So what's the hold up? Why is there no real push to make our society cashless?
I believe our countries strategy in the war on drugs is completely the wrong approach. There's just to much money to be made. The best solution is one that takes the money out of the hands of the criminals. This can be done very easily by going to a mostly cashless society. It's been talked about for years now and yet not much progress. Illegal drugs are a cash based business and would be very difficult to maintain in a cashless society. So what's the hold up? Why is there no real push to make our society cashless?
Sounds like a good thread: What Do We Have To Do To Go Total Digital Currency
You've pointed out a way to gain the majority of control over drug transactions through a cashless currency. This is a great idea and would help against things like not paying taxes, immigration, enforcing car insurance, enforcing bills to be paid, etc.
But check this out, today this country can garnish a person to the point someone can be driven out on the street. Now, what does this person turn to? The underground economy, working under the table. Now imagine a cashless society. Where would they turn to? This is only one issue of many. We have several others that need to be solved before we go that route. If the government took away the right for people to take housing away from an individual, food,etc. all neccities, we'd have a start. But, we'd have to remove the parasitic contractcs, like rent.
Ghostintheshell
Registered Member
@OP - what right do you or anyone else have to tell me what poisons i consensually consume? By drugs i assume you mean current controlled substances and not paracetemol, salt etc. In which case, where do you draw the line between harmful and non-harmful drugs? Who gets to make this distinction? Becasue currently the drugs laws (in the UK) are not in congruence with any medical or biochemical research with the exception of perhaps heroin and crack cocaine.
In the UK the previous government set up an "independent" study to impartially evaluate and scientifically test drugs such as cannabis, cocaine etc. The results came in and were additionally supported by research that was published in The Lancet. (apparently i cannot post links until i have posted 20 times, so no link here - sorry)
This impartial study echoed the results of the chart above yet was dismissed, as well as the leading researchers, who then suffered a fairly harsh smear campaign by some of the less impartial newspapers.
My point is that the current drug laws make no sense. I consider myself a scientist and if a good reason could be presented to me which could explain why less harmful drugs are illegal whilst more harmful ones are legal, im all ears. Instead governments seem to pick and choose based on nothing more than half century old propaganda and ill-informed public opinion. Its a mockery of modern science and reason and i abhore it.
Either ALL substances like alcohol etc should be illegal or none of them should be. I should be free to live my life how i want as long as i dont harm anyone else. I could go on about this as i feel very strongly about it but i'll stop here unless someone wants to argue my points.
In the UK the previous government set up an "independent" study to impartially evaluate and scientifically test drugs such as cannabis, cocaine etc. The results came in and were additionally supported by research that was published in The Lancet. (apparently i cannot post links until i have posted 20 times, so no link here - sorry)
This impartial study echoed the results of the chart above yet was dismissed, as well as the leading researchers, who then suffered a fairly harsh smear campaign by some of the less impartial newspapers.
My point is that the current drug laws make no sense. I consider myself a scientist and if a good reason could be presented to me which could explain why less harmful drugs are illegal whilst more harmful ones are legal, im all ears. Instead governments seem to pick and choose based on nothing more than half century old propaganda and ill-informed public opinion. Its a mockery of modern science and reason and i abhore it.
Either ALL substances like alcohol etc should be illegal or none of them should be. I should be free to live my life how i want as long as i dont harm anyone else. I could go on about this as i feel very strongly about it but i'll stop here unless someone wants to argue my points.
I quick look reveals that Behaviour??? hasn’t been active on these forums since January 2010. I think it’s fair to say that the debate offer is off. A since these threads are not for the purpose of ongoing discussion regarding the proposed topic, I’m closing it. Anyone wishing to discuss this issue, please feel free to open a thread in a relevant subforum.
- Status