i need a good rebuttal....?

Question

The topic is the war on drugs, and my post said that I didn't think drugs should be legalized and someone responded back with, "Technically, we wouldn't have to legalize it for the war on drugs to end. I mean, the police don't bust down doors on a regular basis to make sure the house isn't storing dead bodies, but that doesn't mean murder's suddenly been legalized.

Obviously I would prefer to legalize the stuff, but torpedoing the ridiculous "War on Drugs", with all its excesses and gang-rapes of the Constitution, would work fairly well for me too." Can someone help with a good rebuttal. 10 points to best answer.

Answer 1

That is the most ridiculous argument I ever heard. The police usually stake out a house from a tip to see if drugs (illegal drugs) are being sold. Murder can happen anytime, anywhere, for any reason. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Most murders are crimes of passion or revenge. Despite what many people think, people usually don't kill people they don't know, whether it be in the act of a felony or for any other reason.

Drugs are sold for profit. Not out of revenge or passion.

Answer 2

Firstly, drugs do not better the economy, but in fact make it even worse. This is because the economy abuses the factor of "Free Rights". By this, they feel that the uses of any substances at anytime applies to the freedom factor. If the opposing side chooses to allow these harmful substances into the general public, it will only tear down what the government has built.

Secondly, because these drugs pose as a high risk to the physiological capabilities of most, those that do use it are more likely to commit more crimes of hate and desperation. From gang-rapes, to importing dead bodies across country borders in order to smuggle these drugs. To the opposing side, here is a question... How is an increase in violence any better? Why allow what you are against?

Answer 3

Obviously there needs to be a war on "dangerous drugs". But there are other drugs out there that were legal from hundreds of years. Then, "poof". The government decides since they are not able to tax this, they are not going to let it be legal. We've got Presidental figures openly admitting to doing drugs yet neither one of them was criticized like they should have been...we even put both of them, Clinton and Bush, back in for another term. Goes back to the don't do as I do, do as I say mentality. Bottom line is the war on drugs is a lost cause. It's taking tax dollars that need to go to social security. Because in 20 years, we won't have social security any more. The war on drugs is geared more toward the dealers, not the suppliers. That's why it will never be won. Our government figures, there are more dealers than suppliers. They are getting more money out of the dealers because they can bust them over and over. Therefore they get all of the money off of the fines. Once the supplier is caught, he goes to jail for a long time, government won't get money from him, and we're spending taxes to keep him in jail. The most freely available drug is also the one that kills more people every year....guess what it is?????? TYLENOL!!!!

Answer 4

Think of all the judicial resources which are used to fight the war on drugs. Police, lawyers, judges, and all their clerical workers. Then, if convicted, all the cost of imprisonment; guards, custodians, cooks, and the management of them. It's a multi million dollar business which is not only nonprofitable but also costly and it is we who foot the bill. Think of what all that money and energy could do to actually make us safer from violent crimials; murders and rapists, and think how much safer children could be if we spent that money on protecting them rather than children's services running on skeleton crews and measly budgets. Think how much safer our homes and belongings would be if they were being patrolled?

It's not that I like the idea of drugs, especially hard drugs. But for the most part, it seems most of the danger (to non users) of society comes from the business of selling the drugs and the dealers protecting their territories (or terrortories, as it were). And since the business is illegal, selling it involves risk, which drives the price up, which makes it profitable. And since it is simultaneously addictive and expensive, crimes which affect us (robberies) are commited to support the addiction.

Humans are not the only creatures who like to cop a buzz. Studies have demonstrated examples within the animal kingdom which support the theory that getting high may just be a kind of survival mechanism to reduce stress (who knows why). The point is animals will gorge on over ripened fruit which has fermented and provide alcohol or they will eat certain plants which will get them high. So, are humans any different?

I realize there are drawbacks; the addiction itself, driving under the influence, etc. But would those drawbacks be as damaging to society as the overall cost of the war on drugs? I don't think so but that's just my opinion.

Answer 5

the problem, as I see it, is that the punishment for using drugs is too high and the punishment for selling it is too low. If someone is addicted to something, the threat of jail is meaningless. However, once a user is in jail and he gets cleaned up, he should be rewarded for turning in his old friends and protected from them. Life sentences for selling large amounts of drugs should be the norm. Decriminalize marijuana use and impose less drastic punishment for selling it as with other drugs.

Here is a question for you. If i had a large field and planted a huge crop of pot and just let people take what they wanted, In what way would that violate the laws...It would violate a law, I am sure, but what one?

Can the government illegalize something simply because it is dangerous to use. I don't see saturated fats on any banned list...A lot of it is a refusal to to admit that people have always liked to get high...It should be illegal to sell heroin to school kids because it will destroy them. the kids are not the criminals and should not face any more punishment than the process to become drug free.

Answer 6

wow.......ok, if you need a rebuttal for someone storing dead bodies in a home just for drugs, then let the legal people do the court thing, otherwise, that is just wrong!!!!

Drugs are legal, like nicotine and alcohol, but you have to be 18 or 21 to enjoy those drugs in America right now. If you don't like the rule, then you can side with statistics that most domestic abuse or violence occurs with just one or more of these drugs in them. Just ask the facts. Alcohol is the number one abuser of this, but it is a legal drug.


Is alcohol a good drug to base imported drugs on, like cocaine, or opium? If people are pulled over for alcohol abuse, would people be likewise pulled over for other illegal drugs? Acting "funny" or incoherent, but not failing an alcohol test makes police take further action to what drug they were "doing".

Hope this helps, good luck on your debate......drug "people" drag everyone around them down with them, yes, even grandma.......

Answer 7

the war on drugs is bogus. many of the drug cartels are in cahoots with the CIA or other American business groups. with as much money and resources as we have supposedly pumped into this so called war .........we should have won already.

the drug industry both legal and illegal is a big big business. THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE BY EVERYONE INVOLVED. and as long as that is the case, the forces that are involved in this so called war on drugs, will continue to catch the little fish while leaving the big fish alone.

Answer 8

The answer is not to legalize drugs.

Yes the gov't would tax it but that would mean that the average drug user couldn't sell it to support their habit. I was addicted to cocaine for several years and I sold it to support my habit. If my customers could go down to the corner store and buy their fix I would have to steal to support my habit.

Also what about the medical problems that legalized drugs would cause. Look at cigs. they're blamed for billions a year, and they won't make you go crazy or do stupid things.

Answer 9

no longer all small alterations are advantageous. in basic terms those that fairly make contributions to reproductive fulfillment and are to that end exceeded directly to added generations finally (probably) define the species. an eye fixed with 0.5 the seen field, 0.5 the colour spectrum, 0.5 the determination, 0.5 the sight distance, 0.5 the dimensions, etc... could nevertheless be useful and evolutionary efficient, and nevertheless be 0.5 an eye fixed. Evolution does not produce non-useful issues on a thank you to creating them useful. The flaw interior the mousetrap representation is that evolution starts with something rather primitive, yet useful, and gradually builds it to be greater efficient and greater efficient. Evolution does not produce organic and organic platforms section by potential of section, it starts with a blob of clay it rather is evolutionary efficient, even though if somewhat, and molds it over eons however greater efficient and worse ameliorations (with in basic terms the greater efficient ones surviving). The shape maintains to be useful, in some experience, throughout the time of its progression. The mousetrap is a (intentionally) deceptive metaphor. edit: James' assertion that evolution proceed by potential of including factors to an modern equipment is inaccurate. attempt analyzing "Why Evolution is real" by potential of Coyne. i'm almost executed with it myself, it fairly is a nicely written creation to evolution and the data at the back of it.

Answer 10

Your question contradicts itself. I think you've had enough for tonight. At the top you say you didn't want drugs legalized, and the last paragraph you say you want them legal.

They aren't going to be legalized any time soon, so you can spend years working on your rebuttal yourself.