query: School's duty of care  Peer pressure drives most drug use among children and teenagers. [1] The fact that the state requires all children to be engaged in education means that most of them will be gathered into large groups in schools for most of the day, five days a week, essentially creating the necessary conditions for peer pressure to take place and be powerful. This occurs as some children face ostracism or exclusion from their peers in the social environment that the state compels them to be in if they refuse to take illegal drugs, if drug use is deemed necessary to be 'cool' or 'popular'.  It is, generally, the state that operates a western liberal democracy’s education system. Under circumstances in which children are placed into the care of the state, and are made vulnerable to peer pressure the state has a duty to ensure that children are not coerced into using drugs. This means that concerns of 'privacy' are secondary to protecting the choice not to take drugs, as ensuring the 'privacy' of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.  Random drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drug-taking (by which it can become the 'cool' thing to do) by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to quit, thus protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.  [1] Rosenbaum, Marsha. “Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs”. Drug Policy Alliance. January 1, 2007

positive: education general secondary crime policing house supports random drug testing None of these benefits apply if the peer pressure simply switches to harder drugs which are harder to test for or less likely to be tested for.  Moreover, peer pressure can exist outside of schools, and amongst older teenagers who have the choice to vary their attendance of sixth forms, FE colleges or senior high schools. Random drug testing could lead to older children being pressured to cut classes for prolonged periods of time, in order to take drugs, in order to be thought of as cool.  Teenagers are also notorious for believing that “nothing bad can happen to me”, even if that bad thing becomes more likely (such as being caught with a random drugs test). This is demonstrated by the fact that many teenagers already engage in illegal drug use despite the reasonably high chances that an adult will see them using drugs, smell smoke or notice the drug's effects on them in the status quo. [1]  [1] Grim, Ryan. “Blowing Smoke: Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use”. Slate. March 21, 2006.

negative: th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges Creating needle exchange may normalise drug-taking behaviour  Needle exchanges increase drug use. The state implicitly accepts that drug use is an acceptable practice when it aids drug users in practicing their habit. As such drug users feel less afraid of taking drugs. This can extend to first time users who might be encouraged by friends to take drugs using the morally grey area created by needle exchanges as an argument.  Further, it is principally wrong that the state should help those who choose to take drugs to begin with. In doing so these people are choosing to firstly harm themselves and secondly cause harm to society as well as contravene the law. The state should exist in such a way that should someone contravene the law they be punished, not rewarded with extra supplies from the taxpayer with no further strings.1  1. Toni Meyer. "Making the case for opposing needle  exchange". New Jersey Family Policy Council. November 16, 2007.

negative: Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use  Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)  Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008,  accessed 05/15/2011

negative: In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use  At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate.  Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’.  In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’.  The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself.  Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. .  Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.

negative: Protecting young and vulnerable athletes  Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.

negative: Through their actions, career criminals and drug offenders often subject their families to misery far in excess of the temporary absence of a loved one, or transient financial hardship. The damaging processes of taking drugs and supporting a habit are normalised for children living with addicts; children exposed to drugs in this way are much more likely to develop an addiction themselves. Criminals who make a business out of thievery may use the family home to store acquisitions. Wives and members of an extended family may be coerced into trading stolen goods. Offenders who trade drugs or store stolen goods in leased or social housing risk eviction if their activities are discovered. This, in turn, would lead to their families being displaced or left homeless. Siblings and parents of gang members can often be the targets of violence resulting from feuds and “territorial disputes”.  As noted above, rehabilitation does not offer an immediate “cure” for criminality. Neither can it protect families who, through ignorance or misfortune, are maintained by the proceeds of criminal activity. Although a significant number of prison inmates may be normally honest citizens who have made bad or impulsive choices, an equally large number are poorly socialised members of chaotic families. The environment of lawlessness that such individuals create in family homes creates a situation that may lead their spouses and children into deviance themselves.  Under these circumstances, isolating an offender from his family may give the family an opportunity to break free of a pattern of daily life that would otherwise be saturated with criminality.

negative: Smoking is not a real choice, as nicotine is an addictive drug - in fact; recent allegations suggest that tobacco companies deliberately produce the most addictive cigarettes they can.  Up to 90% of smokers begin when they are below the age of 181, often due to peer pressure; once addicted, continuing to smoke is no longer an issue of freedom of choice, but of chemical compulsion. Like other addictive drugs such as heroin and cocaine, tobacco should be banned since this is the only way to force people to quit. Most smokers say that they want to kick the habit

negative: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo  Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.  Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.  Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]  56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.  Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.  In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.  [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups,  , accessed 08/07/2011  [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  , accessed 08/08/2011

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.

negative: disease health general house would allow production generic drugs The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens  The current drug patent regime is largely designed to benefit and shield the profits of large pharmaceutical companies. This is due to the fact that most of the laws on drug patents were written by lobbyists and voted upon by politicians in the pay of those firms. The pharmaceutical industry is simply massive and has one of the most powerful lobbies in most democratic states, particularly the United States. The laws are orchestrated to contain special loopholes, which these firms can exploit in order to maximize profits at the expense of the taxpayer and of justice. For example, through a process called "evergreening", drug firms essentially re-patent drugs when they near expiration by patenting certain compounds or variations of the drug1. This can extend the life of some patents indefinitely ensuring firms can milk customers at monopoly prices long after any possible costs of research or discovery are recouped. A harm that arises from this is the enervating effect that patents can generate in firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of such patents, firms are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of drug patents will invigorate economic dynamism.  1 Faunce, Thomas. 2004. "The Awful Truth About Evergreening". The Age. Available:

negative: th law crime policing law general house would fund needle exchanges Needle exchanges will increase the incidence of drug use  Beyond increasing drug use through condoning the practice, needle exchanges also facilitate drug use by gathering all the drug addicts in a single area. This allows drug dealers to operate more efficiently and as such gives them more time to explore new markets for their drugs. As well as this, people are encouraged to keep on taking drugs as they feel the risk to them from doing so has been significantly decreased by the exchange. Given the lower risk, those drug users that are still somewhat rational actors will be more likely to take drugs because of the lower potential harm.  Further, in the long run, needle exchanges through these mechanisms make it harder to eradicate drug use entirely in the future. By causing addicts and the public to accept drugs needle exchanges ingrain drugs in society as any removal of the facility in the future will be seen as the state coming down too harshly on drug addicts and can be opposed much more easily.1  1. Lawrence Aaron, “Why a Needle Exchange Programme is a Bad Idea.” RedOrbit. August 26, 2005.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs People should be free to take drugs  Individuals are sovereign over their own bodies, and should be free to make choices which affect them and not other individuals. Since the pleasure gained from drugs and the extent to which this weighs against potential risks is fundamentally subjective, it is not up to the state to legislate in this area. Rather than pouring wasted resources into attempting to suppress drug use, the state would be better off running information campaigns to educate people about the risks and consequences of taking different types of drugs.

negative: The United States can reduce domestic demand for drugs through education  Like Obama, Romney has indicated a willingness to talk to Mexican leaders about collaboration and has admitted the need to address large-scale demand for drugs in the United States. When asked how to improve the War on Drugs, he stated, “We gotta stop the demand here in this country.” [1] And that demand is immense, it is estimated that there are 22.6 million Americans aged 12 of over using illegal drugs. [2] Additionally, he told the Hispanic Leadership Network that along with preventing demand through education, the United States needs to improve its control of the Mexican border. [3]  Romney will try to control domestic demand for drugs by prohibiting their use, educating young people about their harms (as exemplified by his record as Governor of Massachusetts) [4] , and punishing those who break the law. Through education and regulation, the United States can win the War on Drugs, rather than appease drug growers, traffickers, dealers, and users.  [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘Romney Rally Pinkerton Academy Derry, NH’, Youtube, 7 January 2012.  [2] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ‘Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings’, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011.  [3] Romney, Mitt, ‘Mitt Romney Remarks at Hispanic Leadership Network’, C-Span, 27 January 2012.  [4] Harclerode, Kelsey, ‘What Would President Mitt Romney’s Drug Policy Look Like?’, the Atlantic, 2 March 2012.

negative: There is little evidence of cannabis being a gateway drug. In fact, there is a higher correlation between cigarette smoking and hard drugs. If anything, the only way in which cannabis could be said to be a gateway drug is that it is illegal and people may be inclined to buy other illegal drugs after they have bought cannabis, particularly as some dealers will sell other drugs. This problem, however, would be immediately eradicated if cannabis were legalized.  Furthermore, the people who refer cannabis as a "gateway drug" don't take into consideration the prerequisites and situations people are in prior to ones marijuana use. The people who use it as an additive to relaxation occasionally and are in a relaxed environment, maybe with a few friends over to hang out aren’t using it as an escape from reality but at an additive to their relaxation and fun. When cannabis is referred to as a “gateway drug” people are generally and unknowingly referring to the people who use marijuana as an escape from a much less than pleasant reality and “smoke themselves sober” therefore requiring a harder drug to get the same high and escape that cannabis once provided for them.

negative: Improving safety standards in sport  It does not take a lot for chemists to produce performance enhancing drugs, the Scientific American reports: “Rogue scientists start with testosterone or its commercially available analogues and then make minor structural modifications to yield similarly active derivatives.” The underground chemists make no effort to test their creations for effectiveness or safety, of course. Production of a simple new steroid compound would require "lab equipment costing maybe $50,000 to $100,000,". Depending on the number of chemical reactions needed for synthesis, "some of them could be made in a week or two. Others might take six months to a year."(1) As a result of legalizing performance-enhancing drugs a backstreet industry can become regulated as a result there will be much more control and testing to ensure the health and safety of the athletes who take the drugs.  Steven Ashley, Doping by Design, Scientific American 01/12/2004,  , accessed 05/19/2011

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs are dangerous, and the governement should discourage its use  The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens; if a substance will do people and society significant harm, then that substance should be banned. There is no such thing as a safe form of a drug. Legalization can only make drugs purer, and therefore perhaps more deadly and addictive. Many illegal drugs are closely related to potentially dangerous medicines, whose prescription is tightly restricted to trained professionals, but the proposition would effectively be allowing anyone to take anything they wished regardless of the known medical dangers.  However entrenched in modern culture drugs may be, legalising them will only make them appear more acceptable. The state has a duty to send out the right message, and its health campaigns will be fundamentally undermined by the suggestion that drugs are harmless, which is what will be understood from their legalisation – just like when cannabis was downgraded in the UK.

negative: Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself.  Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa. This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime". [1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973,

negative: media modern culture television youth sport house would ban child performers Cases like Drew Barrymore’s are rare, and many young performers have happy and successful careers. All young people are likely to be exposed to adult experiences at some point in their childhood, and it should be left to parents and teachers to educate children of the dangers of alcohol, drugs, etc., no matter what activities the child takes part in outside of school or the home. For many of the areas that involve child performers, there are also laws in place to ensure children are not exposed to age-inappropriate situations. For example, in North America and other countries laws exist to ensure children in the entertainment industry are not “put at risk physically (no dangerous stunts),” “exposed to morally compromising situations,” or ever allowed to “be nude or partially nude,” or “be engaged in overt sexual acts”. [1]  [1] Moore, ‘Protecting Child Stars: Laws and Regulations’

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs When drugs are illegal, this does not stop people from using them. A Canadian report on the matter concluded, "The licit or illicit status of substances has little impact on their use." [1] In addition, even though drugs are illegal, it is not hard to access them. In a Spanish survey, 92.9% of Spanish students said that it was very easy to access illegal drugs – even though only 11.6% used cannabis, which was the most used. [2] Even using the survey quoted by opposition, it is clear that the majority of people surveyed did not view the illegality of cannabis as a reason not to use it.  [1] Parliament of Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs, report issued November, 2002,   [2] Eurocare, ‘92.9 % of Spanish students say that access to drugs is very easy’, 26 March 2010,

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs More people will take drugs if they are legal  Considering that drug use has so many negative consequences, it would be disastrous to have it increase. However, the free availability of drugs once they are legal will make it far easier for individuals to buy and use them. In most cases, under 1% of the population of OECD countries regularly use illegal drugs; many more drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. [1] This must at least partly to do with the illegality. Indeed, in an Australian survey, 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason. [2]  [1] UN Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009,   [2] NSW Bureau of Crime and Statistics, ‘Does Prohibition Deter Cannabis use?’, 23 August 2001,  $file/mr_cjb58.pdf

negative: The state has to take measures to protect the health of its citizens  There is little doubt that smoking tobacco is extremely harmful to the smoker's health. In the US, for example, research by the American Cancer Society suggests that tobacco causes up to 400,000 deaths each year1 - more than AIDS, alcohol, drug abuse, car crashes, murders, suicides, and fires combined. World-wide some 5 million people die from smoking each year2 - one every ten seconds - which estimates suggest will rise to 10 million by 2020. Smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, and smoking can lead to a host of other health problems, including emphysema and heart disease.  In a democracy the people elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time, are well equipped to make a better and more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. Therefore one of the principles is, that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. That is why taking hard drugs and breaking the speed limit are also illegal. It would therefore be reasonable to ban smoking or limit with different means the usage of tobacco - an activity which kills millions of people each year.  Precedent is that if a company produces food that is poisonous or a car that fails safety tests, the product is immediately taken off the market. Since all cigarettes and other tobacco products are poisonous and potentially lethal, they should all be taken off the market. In short, smoking should be banned or very harshly regulated.  1 Cancer Action Network, Help Fight Tobacco and Save Lives, 2 Ash.Research report, Tobacco: Global trends, August 2007,

negative: For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological  The current legislation on drug use in most countries was delivered without canvassing medical opinion and under the influence of public hysteria and moral panic. Seemingly logical but flawed theories linking the use of “soft” drugs to later use of “harder” varieties (cocain, amphetamins) have often been used both to justify and to promote drugs legislation. The apparent sense of these arguments belies the fact that they have been repeatedly disproven [i] .  Lurid, prurient portrayals of the catastrophic consequences of narcotics use in the mass media are frequently used to back up arguments that drugs- even cannabis- are so dangerous that even carefully controlled medical applications are unacceptably risky.  It is clearly the case that when any substance has a proven medical benefit it should be available for prescription. Legislation already exists in most countries to contain the possibility of misuse of prescribed drugs.  However, it is clearly the case that politicians are avoiding this issue not because there is medical doubt on the matter but because they are incapable of reaching a logical conclusion for fear of hysterical – and easy – headlines. To withhold treatment from patients who need it on the basis that a tabloid will run a ‘Soft on Drugs’ story the following morning is the height of irresponsibility.  [i] Degenhardt, L, et al. “Whoare the new amphetamine users? A ten year prospective study of young Australians. Adiction, volume 102, 8, p1269-1279. August 2007.

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Drugs affect how people think, and they take away their ability to control their actions rationally, and so people on drugs are more likely to commit crimes. The US Drug Enforcement Administration states, “Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Summary of the Top Ten Facts on Legalization’, 2010,

negative: disease healthcare international africa censorship ip house would produce high The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason [1] . African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states.  [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Prohibition does not work; instead, it glamorizes drugs  Those who want to use drugs will take them whether they are legal or not – and more are doing so than ever before. In 1970 there was something like 1,000 problematic drug users in the UK, now there are over 250,000. [1] Legalization will also remove the glamour which surrounds an underground activity and so make drug use less attractive to impressionable teenagers. For example, statistics suggest that cannabis use in the UK declined after its classification was lowered from ‘B’ to ‘C’. [2]  [1] Home Affairs Select Committee, ‘The Government’s Drug Policy: Is It Working?’, parliament.uk, 22 May 2002,   [2] Travis, Alan, ‘Cannabis use down since legal change’, The Guardian, 26th October 2007,

negative: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system  Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system.  As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising.  Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States [1] .  Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter. [2]  Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.  [1] Heath Care in the United States.   [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  , accessed 07/30/2011

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs If the state is to make money from taxing drugs, this undercuts the (supposed) advantages of lower-priced drugs and will just encourage a black market to continue. In the UK, there is large black market for tobacco; it is suspected that tax has not been paid on 21% of cigarettes and 58% of hand rolling tobacco consumed. [1] Furthermore, for the state to take revenue from this practise is morally wrong, whatever use the money is put to. The point of drug treatment is to help abusers off drugs, but under the proposition’s system the state would have a financial interest in prolonging addiction.  [1] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, ‘Tobacco Smuggling and Crossborder Shopping’,

negative: Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions.  Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.

negative: Weak Mexican government is to blame not the U.S.  When there is an internal conflict such as this it is almost always a weak government that is to blame for not preventing an escalation of violence. The government is to blame as it is meant to have a monopoly on the use of force, conflicts such as this drugs war occur when that monopoly on violence is broken. In Mexico the election of Vicente Fox as president may have been a democratic triumph for ending the 70 year one party rule by the P.R.I. but in terms of the effectiveness of the central government it was not a success. The National Action Party has been weak in the lower house and senate so unable to advance a legislative agenda. [1] An inability to legislate significantly reduces the ability of the federal government to respond to the drugs crisis. This reduces the ability of the Federal government to step in and sort out local problems. There has been an upsurge of social unrest of all types, not just drugs violence but protests, riots and strikes as well. [2]  Drugs traffickers have taken over many local areas, the local government, police and even some of the army has been penetrated by the drugs traffickers. This leaves the local government unable to do anything against the traffickers. It was not the drugs traffickers who created the institutional problems that allowed the government to become penetrated in the first place; corruption, inefficient police forces and a weak judiciary were already a problem. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘The siesta congress’, 21 January 2012.  [2] Gundzik, Jephraim P. , ‘As Elections Approach, Mexico Faces Internal Instability', Power and Interest News report.  [3] Freeman, Laurie, ‘State of Siege: Drug-Related Violence and Corruption in Mexico Unintended Consequences of the War on Drugs, WOLA Summer report (2006), p.2.

negative: disease healthcare international africa censorship ip house would produce high Some countries, such as India and Thailand, have specialised in producing generic drugs. These states provide the majority of generic drugs to Africa. This removes the burden of other countries to supply Africa with their own drugs whilst potentially damaging their own research companies. India has managed to create a very profitable industry based around cheap generic drugs which it mainly exports to the African continent [1] , decreasing the necessity of other states to contribute vast resources.  Providing generics to Africa will not damage development by the big pharmaceutical companies as at the moment these countries cannot afford the drugs so are not a market. The drugs are researched on the assumption that they will be sold in the developed world. What matters therefore is to ensure that generics for Africa don’t get sold back to the developed world undercutting patented drugs.  [1] Kumar,S. ‘India, Africa’s Pharma’

negative: th addiction health general law crime policing house supports legalisation drugs Prohibition may not be working in the UK but that does not mean that prohibition is not working everywhere. In the US, the Drug Enforcement Agency states that “Overall drug use in the United States is down by more than a third since the late 1970s. That’s 9.5 million people fewer using illegal drugs. We’ve reduced cocaine use by an astounding 70% during the last 15 years.” [1]  [1] U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, ‘Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts’,

negative: Disastrous impact on medical trials  We need medical trials. It is important to have large groups of recruits, which can often be very difficult: a problem with the speed at which new treatments for rare diseases is the rate of recruitment (and therefore the length of time taken to complete the trial)1.  If you pass this motion, trials will face large problems with recruitment, an area where there are already sometimes shortages2: if people can get access to the drug without a) the possibility of being placed in the placebo arm or b) inconveniences of being part of a trial, there is a reduced chance of them choosing to enter the trial.  Consequently, the sample size in trials will be decreased. This will have a couple of outcomes:  First trials will take a longer time to be completed as a result of fewer volunteers and this is bad for patients currently taking the new drug as well as for future patients. This is because it will take longer to determine the safety of the drug meaning if it is dangerous those taking the drug will be taking it for longer before the danger is fully appreciated and if safe then the drug will have taken longer to get to the market than it could have. The longer the trials take to complete, the more people are forced to decide whether to take the drug in the absence of reliable information. This means that, at such a stressful time, people are effectively forced to gamble the quality of their remaining years with the hope of gaining a few more (new drugs are unlikely to be ‘miracle cures’. Rather, they are likely to extend life by driving the disease into remission).  It is important to remember that, at this stage, it has yet to be determined whether new drugs are more effective than old ones, and second, that the sorts of drugs used to treat terminal illnesses tend to come with substantial side effects. As a consequence, if many people are using a new treatment before trialling has been completed, they may be using something that is not effective and has side-effects that significantly impact the quality of the last years of their life.  Finally, the longer trials are delayed, the greater the chance that future trials will be biased by media hype ad speculation. It is both easy and profitable for media outlets to exaggerate early successes of a drug with claims and headlines such as “wonder drug”.  This is problematic because of the tendency towards confirmation bias on the part of researchers: the greater their expectation of a positive result, the more likely they are to alter data to receive that result. Note that this is not as a result of deliberate fraud or deception, but rather, the result of any number of small decisions that, cumulatively, create a large result.  1 Jenkins, John, ‘Considerations for Clinical Trial Designs’, U.S. Food and Drug Administration,   2 ‘Volunteer for research at UNClinicalStudies.org’, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center,


query: A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.  Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved.  Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.  [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23.

positive: global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line.  “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2  On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly.  1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22  2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward:   3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress:   4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96

negative: The war in Afghanistan is necessary for US and NATO security  The timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan means withdrawing by the end of 2012, regardless of the security situation, and handing over the conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaida (which will almost certainly still be going on) to a largely Afghan force which is ill-prepared to handle the war on its own. This means that proponents of the timetable withdrawal must support pulling NATO forces out of Afghanistan even if the war is going badly at the end of 2012 and it is clear that the withdrawal will benefit the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the battlefield. "Afghan forces simply do not currently have the capacity to do the protecting themselves at this point and, given the challenges of building up new institutions in Afghanistan after decades of war, will not necessarily have the ability until by the end of 2012.” US and NATO forces are needed to mentor and partner with Afghans as they build up an army and police force largely from scratch. Withdrawing before this task is completed adds up to a prescription for a drying up of intelligence and a Taliban victory. [1]  If the Taliban were thus to come to power in Afghanistan after the timetabled withdrawal, al-Qaeda would not be far behind. The USA's top nemesis would be able to salvage a victory in the very place from which it launched the 9/11 attacks eight years ago. Al-Qaeda would have its favourite bases and sanctuaries back, as well as a major propaganda win. [2]  This defeat for the West in Afghanistan would embolden its opponents not just in Pakistan, but all around the world, leaving it open to more attacks. [3]  The West has a security interest in preventing the region from slipping into a maelstrom of conflict. Pakistan, with 170m people and nuclear weapons, is vulnerable to the Taliban’s potent mixture of ethnic-Pushtun nationalism and extremist Islam, as its state power is tenuous. Anarchy in Afghanistan, or a Taliban restoration, would leave it prey to permanent cross-border instability. [4]  Therefore success in Afghanistan is key to the security in Pakistan. The US has even more reasons to care about the security of Pakistan when the India-Pakistan conflict is considered, especially as both sides of this have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan have come within a hair’s breadth from nuclear conflict twice over Kashmir. If Pakistan were to fall apart, it would potentially leave nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war with India. It is a compelling and vital American interest to prevent nuclear conflict in South Asia—which makes “fixing” Afghanistan in some way also a vital American interest, even if this means keeping the troops there past the timetabled withdrawal. [5]  The War on Terror cannot be won if the US and NATO pull out of Afghanistan and rely more simply on offshore military resources. During the 1990s, when the US tried to go after Osama bin Laden without access to nearby bases by using ships based in the Indian Ocean, the two- to four-hour flight times of drones and cruise missiles operating off such ships made prompt action to real-time intelligence impractical. [6]  Since 1979, the US has been involved in a long, complex conflict against Islamic extremism. It has fought this ideology in many ways in many places, and it is uncertain now how this conflict will evolve. However the US should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it is in the US and NATO'S long-term interests to push back — and that eventually, if they do so, extremism will wither. [7]  The timetabled withdrawal from Afghanistan could mean withdrawing before this struggle has been won, and handing a base for exporting terrorism to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Security comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first, and so the security dimension here is key. Therefore, in order to protect the security of the US and other NATO countries, the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan should be abandoned, and the troops should remain there until the job is done.  [1] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [2] ibid  [3] The Economist. "Obama's War". 15 October 2009.   [4] ibid  [5] Foust, Joshua. "The Case for Afghanistan: Strategic Considerations". Registan. 27 August 2009.   [6] Bruce Riedel, Bruce and O'Hanlon, Michael. "Why we can't go small in Afghanistan". USA Today. September 4, 2009   [7] Brooks, David. "The Afghan Imperative". New York Times. 24 September 2009.


query: Animals' rights are of less moral worth than human rights  Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, that form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, possess interconnected desires, preferences and interests about the world, have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. Animals too express some of these characteristics to some degree and thus animals too are worthy of moral consideration. However, animal lives and human lives are of unequal value. This is due to the fact that no animal possesses all of these characteristics to the same degree as the average human, or even comes particularly close. Thus any rights ascribed to animals should be truncated relative to the rights we ascribe to humans. [1] Therefore animals should not rightly possess the same rights to not be experimented upon as humans might. To the extent to which causing some harm to animals brings great benefit to humans, we are morally justified in creating some moral harm, to achieve a far greater moral good.  [1] Frey, R. G., “Moral Standing: The Value of Life and Speciesism”, in La Follette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, (Malden, Mass; Oxford : Blackwell Pub, 2007)

positive: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal To argue that the ends justify the means does not justify research upon animals. Firstly we do not know the extent to which animals are capable of holding interests or experiencing suffering, as they are unable to communicate with us. Our shared similarities give us cause to believe they must have at least a truncated experience of the world to us, but we cannot know the level of that truncation. Thus in order to avoid committing a significant moral harm upon a being we do not fully understand, a precautionary principle of non-experimentation would be well advised. Secondly, even if we would be achieving a net gain on the utilitarian calculator, that is insufficient justification on its own. By that same logic, experimenting on one person to save the lives of many could be justified, even if it caused them suffering, and even if they did not consent. Common morality suggests that this is an objectionable position to hold, as the moral principle would allow us to treat any being as a means to an end rather than existing as a being of independent value. [1] In short such logic would allow us to experiment not only on animals but also on non-consenting people, and we posit that to be an unreasonable position to hold in this debate.  [1] Crisp. R., Mill on Utilitarianism, (Routledge, 1997)

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Research can be done effectively without experimenting on living creature  As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. [1]  [1] PETA. 2011. Alternatives: Testing Without Torture.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Firstly the vast majority of drugs released today (around 75%) are so called “me too” drugs that add little, if any genuine innovation to the existing body of pharmaceuticals in production. Rather, they represent only a slight molecular tweak on an existing drug line. Such drugs rarely save lives or even relieve much suffering upon their release, as they are only very slightly better, for only some patients, than the drugs available prior to its release. [1] None the less, the development of only technically novel compounds is used as a justification for research on animals, even when the benefit from such research is marginal at best. Secondly, even if there was a small increase in future human suffering, relative to a future where such a policy was not adopted, it would be worth it due to the saving of so much animal suffering, and the moral impermissibility of inflicting that for our own gains.  All this is notwithstanding the proposition point that much of the research does not necessitate animal testing.  [1] Stanford Medical Magazine. 2005. Me-too drugs: Sometimes They’re Just The Same Old, Same Old.

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics To suggest that battery farms are in some way 'natural' is absurd - they are unnatural and cruel. To eat meat is to perpetuate animal suffering on a huge scale - a larger, crueler, and more systematic scale than anything found in the wild. Furthermore, the very fact of humanity's 'superiority' over other animals means they have the reason and moral instinct to stop exploiting other species. If an alien species from another planet, much more intelligent and powerful than humans, came and colonized the earth and farmed (and force-fed) human beings in battery farm conditions we would think it was morally abhorrent. If this would be wrong, then is it not wrong for we 'superior' humans to farm 'lower' species on earth simply because of our ability to do so?

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is necessary for the development of truly novel substances  Undoubtedly then, the most beneficial research to mankind is the development of truly novel drugs. Even according to the proposition this represents about a quarter of all new drugs released, which could be seen as significant given the great potential to relieve the suffering beyond our current capacity that such drugs promise.  After the effects, side effects and more complex interactions of a drug have been confirmed using animal and non-animal testing, it will usually pass to what is called a phase I clinical trial - tests on human volunteers to confirm how the drug will interact with human physiology and what dosages it should be administered in. The risk of a human volunteer involved in a phase I trial being harmed is extremely small, but only because animal tests, along with non-animal screening methods are a highly effective way of ensuring that dangerous novel drugs are not administered to humans. In the United Kingdom, over the past twenty years or more, there have been no human deaths as a result of phase I clinical trials.  Novel compounds (as opposed to so-called "me-too" drugs, that make slight changes to an existing treatment) are the substances that hold the most promise for improving human lives and treating previously incurable conditions. However, their novelty is also the reason why it is difficult for scientists to predict whether they may cause harm to humans.  Research into novel compounds would not be possible without either animal testing, or tremendous risk to human subjects, with inevitable suffering and death on the part of the trial volunteers on some occasions. It is difficult to believe that in such circumstances anyone would volunteer, and that even if they did, pharmaceutical companies would be willing to risk the potential legal consequences of administering a substance to them they knew relatively little about. In short, development of novel drugs requires animal experimentation, and would be impossible under the proposition's policy.

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior Research animals are well treated  Animals used in research generally don’t suffer. While they may be in pain, they are generally given pain killers, and when they are put down this is done humanely. [16] They are looked after, as healthy animals mean better experimental results. These animals live better lives than they would in the wild.  As long as animals are treated well there shouldn’t be a moral objection to animal research. This is exactly the same as with raising animals that will be used for meat.

negative: Bullfighting is no more harmful than the alternatives for bulls and cows  Robert Elms argued in 2010 that "Those who see bullfighting as cruel are, of course, right. It is cruel that man should breed and kill animals for his enjoyment whether as a dinner or a dance. But to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beefburgers."(10)  Moreover, Bulls are celebrated and honored in bullfighting. In most bullfighting countries, bulls are honored as mystical creatures of immense strength and beauty. Statues of bulls regularly stand outside of bullfighting stadiums, and depict the animals in the most majestic, strong, and beautiful way possible. These statues frequently standalone without an accompanying matador in the depiction.(8)  This respect and appreciation of the bull is a demonstration of the decency with which the art form treats the animal. All members of the bullfighting community, fighters and crowds alike, prize quick and relatively painless kills. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)  Therefore there is no compelling moral reason to ban bullfighting, as in many ways it is either no worse or even superior to the other roles assigned to cows and bulls in Western cultures. If anything, the end result (death for human enjoyment) is the same if the animal is eaten or dies in a bullring, but at least in a bullfight the cultural value and artistic expression gives the creature's life and death a poetry and nobility which it will never have in a mechanical slaughterhouse or a butcher's shop.

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Most of these human deaths are caused by humans invading the territory of the animals at hand. Even giraffes, usually considered peaceful animals, will attack if they feel that humans are too close. Generally, it is the human’s responsibility rather than the animal’s. Increased protection may save more lives as methods such as fencing will forcibly separate humans from animals and decrease the chances of the two coming in to contact. [1]  [1] Morelle, R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable  Developed countries, including the US and all members of the EU (since EU Directive 2010/63/EU) have created laws and professional regulations that prevent scientists from using animals for research if other, non-animal research methods would produce equally clear and detailed results.  The principle described above is also enshrined in the "3Rs" doctrine, which states that researchers and their employers have a duty to identify ways to refine experiments conducted on animals, so that yield better results and cause less suffering; replace animals used in research the non-animal alternatives where possible; and reduce the number of animals used in research. Not only does the 3Rs doctrine represent a practical way to reconcile the necessity of animal research with the universal human desire not to cause suffering, it also drives scientists to increase the overall quality of the research that they conduct. Governments and academic institutions take the 3Rs doctrine very seriously. In EU countries scientists are required to show that they have considered other methods of research before being granted a license for an animal experiment.  There are a huge number of ways of learning about our physiology and the pathologies which affect it, including to computer models, cell cultures, animal models, human microdosing and population studies. These methods are used to complement one another, for example animal models may well produce data that creates a computer model. Nonetheless, there is some research which cannot be done any other way. It is difficult to understand the interaction of specific sets of genes without being able to change only these genes – something possible through genetically modified animals.  Finally, as noted above, given the high cost of conducting animal research relative to other methods, there is a financial incentive for institutions to adopt non-animal methods where they produce as useful and accurate results.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This logic assumes that one positive moral action can cancel out a negative moral action. That an animal is well treated before being involved in animal testing and its suffering during testing is kept to a minimum does not balance the very real suffering the animal experiences during the experiments themselves. Regulation would not be helpful in addressing this contradiction as the suffering during the experiments could never be eliminated as if we knew the effects the experiment will have on the animal the experiment would not be necessary in the first place.

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior Animals shouldn’t be harmed  The difference between us and other animals is a matter of degree rather than type [2]. Their bodies resemble ours, as do their ways of conveying meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities; a point clear to anyone who has observed a pet dog on hearing the word “walk”.  We believe other people experience feelings like us because they are like us in appearance and behaviour. An animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have feelings like us.  If people have a right to not be harmed, we must ask ourselves what makes animals different? If animals feel what we feel, and suffer like us, to condemn one to testing because of them being of a different species is similar to racism or sexism.[3]

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Humans can choose their own nutrition plan  Humans are omnivores – we are meant to eat both meat and plants. Like our early ancestors we have sharp canine teeth for tearing animal flesh and digestive systems adapted to eating meat and fish as well as vegetables. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Only in a few western countries are people self-indulgent enough to deny their nature and get upset about a normal human diet. We were made to eat both meat and vegetables - cutting out half of this diet will inevitably mean we lose that natural balance. Eating meat is entirely natural. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.

negative: ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior The right of a human not to be harmed is based not on appearance but on not harming others. Animals don’t participate in this.  Animals won’t stop hunting because of the pain and feelings of other animals. Even if animal testing were to be abolished people would still eat meat, and kill animals for other less worthwhile reasons than animal testing.

negative: States should not possess such destructive, cataclysmic weapons  Nuclear weapons are, by their very nature, indiscriminate and disproportional; any weapon which could not possibly be used in a responsible manner should not be permitted. Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003). No state or leader can be entrusted, morally, with a power and responsibility that could come close to annihilating humanity.

negative: economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should Freedom of movement is an intrinsic human right  Every human being is born with certain rights. These are protected by various charters and are considered inseparable from the human being. The reason for this is a belief that these rights create the fundamental and necessary conditions to lead a human life. Freedom of movement is one of these and has been recognised as such in Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] If a family finds themselves faced with starvation, the only chance they have of survival might be to move to another place where they might live another day. It is inhuman to condemn individuals to death and suffering for the benefit of some nebulous collective theory. While we might pass some of our freedoms to the state, we have a moral right to the freedoms that help us stay alive – in this context freedom of movement is one of those.  [1] General Assembly, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 10 December 1948,

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Fewer human deaths  Fewer large beasts will lead to fewer deaths in Africa. Some endangered animals are aggressive and will attack humans. Hippopotamuses kill in excess of three hundred humans a year in Africa, with other animals such as the elephant and lion also causing many fatalities. [1] Footage released in early 2014 of a bull elephant attacking a tourist’s car in Kruger National Park, South Africa demonstrated the continued threat these animals cause. [2] Tougher protection would result in higher numbers of these animals which increases the risk to human lives.  [1] Animal Danger ‘Most Dangerous Animals’  [2] Withnall, A. ‘Rampaging bull elephant flips over British tourist car in Kruger Park’

negative: Humanity owes a moral responsibility to future generations  Human moral responsibility to future generations: Species extinction is an irrevocable occurrence. Outside of the film 'Jurassic Park', extinct species cannot be summoned back from the grave once human action has put them there. This means that when a current generation makes the decision not to protect an endangered species and thus allows human action to drive it to extinction, this denies future generations the ability to make up their own minds about the pros and cons of the survival of that endangered species, especially considering that they might want that species to exist for the aforementioned scientific, medical, aesthetic or moral reasons. For example, there is a great modern-day interest in the dodo species of bird which was hunted to extinction in Mauritius in the 17th Century. [1] The opinion of many in the modern world today is one of regret at the bird's extinction and that it should have been protected, but a lack of consideration of the wishes of future generations in the 17th Century has meant that the humans of the 21st Century are denied the ability to decide on the value of this species themselves. Because we place a moral value on the ability of humans to make decisions (as we consider it to be a good thing when we ourselves have this ability) we should recognise that the possibly differing opinions of future generations should constrain our choices somewhat, and we should protect endangered species so that future generations can decide for themselves regarding their value.  [1] BBC News “Dodo skeleton find in Mauritius”. BBC News. 24 June 2006.

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Survival of the fittest  It is natural for human beings to farm, kill, and eat other species. In the wild there is a brutal struggle for existence as is shown by Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. [1] The fact that we humans have succeeded in that struggle by exploiting our natural environment means that we have a natural right over lower species. The concept of survival of the fittest may seem outdated but it is still the defining order of nature. In fact farming animals is much less brutal than the pain and hardship that animals inflict on each other naturally in the wild.  [1] Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life., Literature.org

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior Many of these drugs are “me too” drugs – ones with a slight change that doesn’t make much difference to an existing drug. [14] So often the benefits from animal testing are marginal, and even if there was a slight increase in human suffering, it would be worth it based on the animal suffering saved.

negative: law general philosophy life house believes suicide should be criminal offence Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,

negative: Bullfighting is an art-form and an important cultural tradition  Ernest Hemingway said about bullfighting that it is "a decadent art in every way [...] if it were permanent it could be one of the major arts."(9) Bullfighting should thus not be understood as simply a 'bloodsport' with some cultural connotations but rather as an inherently cultural art form. The poet Garcia Lorca said in the 1930s that bullfighting is "the last serious thing in the modern world".(10)  In many ways the seriousness of watching a life-and-death struggle in the arena is nothing short of poetic and this significance is perceived not only by the audience and the bullfighting community but in the wider culture of the nations which currently permit bullfighting. Robert Elms argued in 2010 that, in nations which do not practice bullfighting, “Our squeamishness means that we prefer death which is mechanical and invisible, while the Spanish understand that it is part of a cycle.[...] It is a public celebration of death (a subject we prefer to hide from in Britain) which, when it is done well, becomes a celebration of life. The man charged with the task of delivering a fine end to this fierce and powerful creature will dance with it along the way, laying his own life on the line to create a swirling symbiosis."(10)  Hemmingway echoed this, arguing that bullfighting promoted an understanding of violent death: "The only place where you could see life and death, i. e., violent death now that the wars were over, was in the bull ring and I wanted very much to go to Spain where I could study it. I was trying to learn to write, commencing with the simplest things, and one of the simplest things of all and the most fundamental is violent death."(9)  This is why Madrid and other places have protected and recognized bullfighting as an art form, not just a sport.(1)  The understanding and cultural value in the bullfighting nations stems from their long history of the practice. Bullfighting traces its roots to prehistoric bull worship and sacrifice. The killing of the sacred bull (tauroctony) is the essential central iconic act of Mithras, which was commemorated in the mithraeum wherever Roman soldiers were stationed. The oldest representation of what seems to be a man facing a bull is on the celtiberian tombstone from Clunia and the cave painting "El toro de hachos", both found in Spain.(8)  The continuity of the modern bullfights with these ancient commemorations is shown by the fact that in Spain, many youth idealize bull fighters for their strength, grace, and wit in outmaneuvering bulls.(10)  This is valuable in inspiring and compelling success in future generations. Bullfighting is a genuinely popular and enjoyed cultural art form in many nations: Spanish bullrings are not kept alive by tourists. Rather, despite the economic recession which has hit Spain especially hard, the bullfights are still thriving, its top practitioners are huge stars, and its fan are intensely devoted, because it is still the very soul of this dark and complex country. Bullfighting thrives because its local fans are dedicated, and they are dedicated because they perceive its poetry and value to the culture.(10)  Thus bullfighting has a cultural value which trumps misplaced concerns regarding 'animal rights', especially as 'animal rights' are simply a concept created by each culture and defined in different ways. Culturally, it is acceptable in the West to eat meat, and so this is legal even though it causes cows to suffer and die. Similarly, the culture of the bullfighting countries places a value upon the bullfight, thus privileging it above the 'rights' of the animal. To allow the moral qualms of other non-bullfighting cultures to dictate cultural practices in Spain or Mexico would be to privilege these other cultures' values above those of bullfighting nations, and deprive them of part of their uniqueness. As Robert Elms argues, if the bullfight dies out due to the pressure of other cultures' moral qualms, bullfighting nations will become "more like everywhere else, dominated by gaudy globalism and neutered by the homogenising forces of technology and accepted taste."(10)

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior Testing is needed for really new drugs  The real benefit of animal testing is making totally new drugs, which is about a quarter of them. After non-animal and then animal tests, it will be tested on humans. The reason why the risk is low (but not non-existent) for these brave volunteers, is because of the animal tests.  These new chemicals are the ones most likely to produce improvements to people’s lives, because they are new. You couldn’t do research on these new drugs without either animal testing or putting humans at a much higher risk.

negative: ent animals science science general ban animal testing junior What then is the interest of the animal? If releasing these animals into the wild would kill them then surely it is humane to put them down after the experiment. It must also be remembered that the interest of the animal is not the main and is outweighed by the benefits to humans. [5]

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal This again highlights some of the problems with animal research. In the UK example cited, animal testing had been done, and the dose given to the human volunteers was a tiny fraction of the dose shown to be safe in primates. Animal research is an unreliable indicator of how drugs will react in the human body, and as such alternatives should be sought and improved upon.

negative: animals philosophy ethics science science general house would ban animal People would die and suffer needlessly under such a policy  23 new drugs are introduced each year in the United Kingdom alone . [1] . While almost all of these drugs will have been brought to the market after extensive animal testing, the number of animals used to check their safety only seems to be a high cost when the benefits that each drug brings to its users are inadequately considered.  New drugs that are approved for medical use have the potential to relieve human pain and suffering not only for the first group of patients given access to them, but also for future generations of sick and suffering individuals too. Consider all the lives, all over the world, that have benefitted from penicillin since its discovery in 1928. If drugs cost more to research and develop, then that reduces potential profit margins, and some drugs that would have otherwise been discovered and released will fall below the new threshold of likely profits necessary to fund the research. Adopting this proposition will lead to more people suffering and dying in the future than would have otherwise been the case.  [1] BBC News. 2013. Falling drug breakthroughs 'a myth'.

negative: animals science science general ban animal testing junior It isn’t necessary  We don’t know how we will be able to develop new drugs without animal testing until we end it. We now know how most chemicals work, and computer simulations of chemicals are very good.[6] Experimenting on tissue can show how drugs work, without the need for actual animals. Even skin left over from surgery can be experiment on, and being human, is more useful.  The fact that animal research was needed in the past isn’t a good excuse any more. We still have all the advancements from animal testing in the past, but it’s no longer needed. [7]

negative: Protecting endangered species protects the interests of humans  Protecting endangered species helps protect humans: Humans actually benefit in a large number of ways from the protection of endangered species and thus continuing biodiversity. Firstly, the diversity of life and living systems is considered by many scientists to be a necessary condition for human development. We live in a world built on a carefully balanced ecosystem in which all species play a role, and the removal of species from this can cause negative consequences for the whole ecosystem, including humans. [1] There is also the potential for almost any species to hold currently-unknown future benefits to humans through products they could provide. One example of this is the scrub mint, an endangered plant species which has been found to contain an anti-fungal agent and a natural insecticide, and thus holds great potential for use that benefits humans. [2] Endangered species have also been known to hold the key to medical breakthroughs which save human lives. One example of this is the Pacific yew (a tree species) which became the source of taxol, one of the most potent anticancer compounds ever discovered. [3] Biodiversity also helps protect humans in that different species' differing reactions to ecological problems may in fact act as a kind of 'early warning' system of developing problems which may one day negatively affect people. This was the case with the (now banned) dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) pesticide, as the deterioration of the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon through their exposure to DDT in fact alerted humans to the potential health hazards of this pesticide, not just to animals but also to humans. [4] Thus the preservation of endangered species helps to protect humans, as this means plants and animals continue to play their specific role in the world's ecosystem which humans rely on, can act as an 'early warning' for problems which may affect humans, and may hold the key to scientific and medical breakthroughs which can greatly benefit humanity. Al this could be lost through the careless extinction of plant and animal species.  [1] Ishwaran, N., & Erdelen, W. “Biodiversity Futures”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[4]. May 2005   [2] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [3] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.   [4] Wilcove, D. S., & Master L. L. “How Many Endangered Species are there in the United States?”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3[8]. October 2008.

negative: y epistemology religion church faith religion general god morality secularism Atheism does not seek to explain the origin of the Universe, life, etc.; that is what science is for. Atheism is about the existence of God. The atheist position is supported, however, by the fact that there is no evident design in the Universe. People tend to anthropomorphize their environment, trying to assign human-like qualities to animals and nature. All of the complexity in the Universe can be attributed to natural processes; the Universe, stars, and life are all the product of physical and chemical interactions. There is no mystery in the basic process. Complexity can be shown to arise from less complex conditions without aid of intelligent agency. Clearly, complexity is not indicative of a creator. The complexity of the Universe does nothing to support claims for the existence of a deity, but rather showcases the wondrousness of the natural world.

negative: Persecution of homosexuals is morally wrong  From a moral perspective, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their sexuality. Everyone should have equal rights; Hilary Clinton stated that ‘gay rights are human rights’ [1] , the derogation of such rights is a serious moral affront. There is evidence that homosexuality is not optional [2] . Discriminating on sexual orientation is therefore the same as discriminating upon factors such as race and ethnicity. Even if changeable it would be the same as discrimination on the basis of identity or religion.  Same sex relations are victimless which calls in to question whether it could ever be defined as something to be criminalised. Whilst some may point to male on male rape, these figures are low compared to male on female rape. In the U.S. where homosexuality is legal, only 9% of rape victims were male and only a small proportion of those being male on male [3] . Criminalising and institutionally embedding hatred against homosexuality has served to alienate many Africans from their families and communities [4] . Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality is not something any donor would want to endorse even implicitly it is therefore morally right to cut the aid.  [1] The Obama Administration’s Bold but Risky Plan to make Africa Gay-Friendly Corey-Boulet,R 07/03/12  [2] Kingman,S. ‘Nature, not nurture? New Studies suggest that homosexuality has a biological basis, determined more by genes and hormones than social factors or psychology, says Sharon Kingman. 04/10/1992  [3] Wikipedia Gender by rape  [4] The Guardian Persecuted for being gay. 13 September 2011

negative: animals international africa house would african government implement tougher Natural habitats being are destroyed  A tougher approach to the protection of animals is needed to prevent their natural habitats from being destroyed by locals. As humans expand their agricultural activity in Africa they are destroying the environments of endangered animals and pushing others towards being endangered. Due to an increase in large scale cotton plantations and food crops, the West African lion has seen a marked decrease in population; numbering less than 400 in early 2014 [1] . Tougher protection, such as fencing off areas from human activity, has been suggested and has seen success in South Africa [2] .  [1] BBC, “Lions ‘facing extinction in West Africa’”  [2] Morelle,R. “Fencing off wild lions from humans ‘could save them’”

negative: Bullfighting is a form of animal torture  Bullfighting constitutes animal torture because it is exactly the suffering of the animal from which the entertainment of the crowd is drawn, and the level of suffering inflicted is on the level of that caused by torture. Jeremy Bentham argued that "Cock-fights and bull-fights, the chase of the hare and the fox, fishing, and other amusements of the same kind, necessarily suppose a want of reflection or a want of humanity; since these sports inflict upon sensitive beings the most lively sufferings, and the most lingering and painful death that can be imagined."(1)  The want of humanity even in modern bullfighting is shown by the sadistic cruelties inflicted on the bulls: According to anti-bullfight veterinarian José Zaldívar, in the great majority of cases, the matador missed the vital spot that would cause the bull to die quickly. "These provoke internal bleeding. It is a slow, agonising death – as the high acidity of their blood proves."(2)  At the end of the fight, the bull may not be yet dead while his body parts are cut-off to be kept as trophies. Spanish bull breeders receive EU agricultural subsidies, meaning that, in the EU, taxpayers' money from all countries (not just those with legal bullfighting) goes to support this terrible industry.(3)  Also, in order to reduce the risk to the matador, sometimes the bull’s horns are shaved. This can inflict some pain on the bull and can also make it more sensitive to other forms of pain during the fight.(3)  Moreover, bulls are not the only creatures to suffer in bullrings. The tormented bull does not understand that it is the man on the horse's back that is causing his pain, only that he is in agony. He therefore sees the horse as his enemy as much as the man. It's not unusual for horses used in bullfights to be so badly gored by the bulls that they have to be killed, but only after they have been dragged from the ring and the view of the spectators.(4)  All this suffering makes bullfighting as unacceptable as the many other kinds of animal cruelty which most countries ban, such as cockfighting, dogfighting or any other form of grievous harm inflicted on an animal for 'entertainment' purposes.(2)  We have these laws because governments have generally acknowledged the truth of Bentham's words: "It doesn't matter if they can reason; it doesn't matter if they can speak; what does matter is if they can SUFFER."(5)  All nations need to follow through on this principle by making bullfighting illegal, just like any other form of animal torture.

negative: animals environment general health health general weight philosophy ethics Being vegetarian reduces risks of food poisoning  Almost all dangerous types of food poisoning are passed on through meat or eggs. So Campylobacter bacteria, the most common cause of food poisoning in England, are usually found in raw meat and poultry, unpasteurised milk and untreated water. Salmonella come from raw meat, poultry and dairy products and most cases of escherichia coli (E-Coli) food poisoning occur after eating undercooked beef or drinking unpasteurised milk. [1]  Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.  [1] Causes of food poisoning, nhs.co.uk, 23rd June 2009