query: Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

positive: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

positive: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheeriosï¿½ is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be ‘used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for ‘safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between ‘drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.

positive: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

positive: Creating a mentality of illness Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1]   [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

positive: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.

positive: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Creating a mentality of illness

positive: 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, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011

positive: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the "ill-informed" pubic.

positive: Advertisements do more harm than good My main points will be as follows: 1. People need advertisements. 2. Advertisements contribute to the economy. 3. Alot of free things are free because of advertisments. My first point: People need advertisements. What would a world without advertisements be like for humans? First of all alot of the worldy items that we want or need are given to us as a direct result from advertising! How would we know where and how to get set up with the best prices and promos for the items we need, such as internet, tv, phone, groceries, etc! We see and hear advertisements that represent the best ways to get the items we need for cheap. As most people know, not every single person in this world has pockets full of money to spend on things. We need to know and hear about the things that will save us money, so we can be better, and more econmical with our spending. Without knowing how much to spend and where to spend at for the best ways to save, how would anyone have money to pay the bills? Advertisements are absolutely nessecary for this reason! My second point: Advertisements contribute to the economy. Pretty much every single business in the world, needs some sort of marketing ploy for it to be able to run properly. Marketing is run majorly off of advertising alone. Without advertisement, you wouldn't be able to get paid properly for the work you do. If people don't know about a product, then they will not buy your product plain and simple. If you want your business to prosper, you need advertisements, plain and simple. That's how businesses make money, and that's how you get paid for the hours to work everyday! If no one were to spend money on products, are economy would collapse! In this article I am providing, it will explain how to the consumer spending it what helps the economy thrive. . http://helpsavemydollars.com... "Let's say you deposited this $1,000 into your savings account. Most likely, it's a win-win situation for you because you're probably earning interest on this money and you now have $1,000 in liquid cash that can be very helpful should you lose your job in the future or should you incur any unexpected expenses later on. It's also a win-win scenario for the bank. You just "gave" the bank $1,000 to loan out to other people/businesses. Remember, banks are here to make money and they do that by loaning out the money that you deposited. Since you deposited $1,000 into the bank, that bank can now loan it out to a pizza parlor, for example, to be used in part to buy a new pizza oven. Now because that pizza parlor replaced their old oven using that $1,000 loan from the bank, they can now make more pizzas at a faster rate, which would mean that the parlor now must purchase more dough, sauce and cheese from a food supplier. Now the food supplier benefits from all of this extra business and the food supplier will use the money it earns from selling dough, sauce and cheese to pay its employees. The employees of the food supplier now have money to pay their personal bills and they might even have some left over money to go to the movies. Since you saved that $1,000, as opposed to buying a new television, an even more impactful chain reaction occurred. " My third point: Alot of free things are free because of advertisements. Alot of things we use every single day for are very own enjoyment, are only free as a directv result of advertisement. Many people listen to the radio on their way to school or work. Have you ever consindered how the radio stations make money if the radio is a free service to everyone? It's simply due to the fact that people and businesses will pay good money for their product to be mentioned by peoples favorite hosts, and during commercials. People who like to watch movies online for free also benefit for advertising. How to those sites benefit from making movies free to the public? Directly from advertising! The most famous movie site that comes to mind is a site called tubeplus. me. This site offers almost every tv show or movie known to people, that millions of people are able to enjoy due to the fact that there are advertisement on the side. The same goes for virtually any website that a person would need to use. Music, games, tv companies, they all make their money from advertising. Now i'm going to quickly move on to my opponent. My opponent states: "People shouldn't have to have their lives attacked by a huge quantity of information they might not want. " This is not true in the slightest. Business and companies that advertisement pay to have there information posted publicy. It's not forced on anyone and everyone has the ability to choose whether or not to read or listen to an advertisement. So how are people being 'attacked'?

positive: Advertisements do more harm than good 1) Television is greatly abused for commercial purposes and other types of uses, in which audiences are constantly sold to: Advertisers try to convince the audience that the solution to a problem or the fulfilment of a desire can only be achieved through the purchase of a product. It is designed towards blind acceptance by the viewer. In this way TV negatively affects the human mind, by limiting the possibilities of conscious choice, and promotes a consumer society. It can be also misused to urge people to buy even things they do not need by subliminal advertising. 2)People spend the biggest part of their time view advetisments : According to the statistics, the average American child watches 262 views ads per week. That's how ads reduce the quality of real life by narrowing people's outlook, limiting the variety of free time activities, affecting family relations by reducing conversation, and even having an impact on health by discouraging exercise. ""Research has shown that young children—younger than 8 years—are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising.6–9 They do not understand the notion of intent to sell and frequently accept advertising claims at face value.10 In fact, in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) held hearings, reviewed the existing research, and came to the conclusion that it was unfair and deceptive to advertise to children younger than 6 years.11 What kept the FTC from banning such ads was that it was thought to be impractical to implement such a ban.11 However, some Western countries have done exactly that: Sweden and Norway forbid all advertising directed at children younger than 12 years, Greece bans toy advertising until after 10 PM, and Denmark and Belgium severely restrict advertising aimed at children." Television Children and adolescents view 400 00 ads per year on TV alone.13 This occurs despite the fact that the Children's Television Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101–437) limits advertising on children's programming to 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends and 12 minutes/hour on weekdays. However, much of children's viewing occurs during prime time, which features nearly 16 minutes/hour of advertising.14 A 30-second ad during the Super Bowl now costs $2.3 million but reaches 80 million people.15 Movies A 2000 FTC investigation found that violent movies, music, and video games have been intentionally marketed to children and adolescents.16 Although movie theaters have agreed not to show trailers for R-rated movies before G-rated movies in response to the release of the FTC report, children continue to see advertising for violent media in other venues. For instance, M-rated video games, which according to the gaming industry's own rating system are not recommended for children younger than 17 years, are frequently advertised in movie theaters, video game magazines, and publications with high youth readership.17 Also, movies targeted at children often prominently feature brand-name products and fast food restaurants.18 In 1997–1998, 8 alcohol companies placed products in 233 motion pictures and in 1 episode or more of 181 TV series.18 Print Media According to the Consumer's Union,19 more than 160 magazines are now targeted at children. Young people see 45% more beer ads and 27% more ads for hard liquor in teen magazines than adults do in their magazines.20 Despite the Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry in 1998, tobacco advertising expenditures in 38 youth-oriented magazines amounted to $217 million in 2000.21 The Internet An increasing number of Web sites try to entice children and teenagers to make direct sales. Teenagers account for more than $1 billion in e-commerce dollars,22 and the industry spent $21.6 million on Internet banner ads alone in 2002.23 More than 100 commercial Web sites promote alcohol products.23 The content of these sites varies widely, from little more than basic brand information to chat rooms, "virtual bars," drink recipes, games, contests, and merchandise catalogues. Many of these sites use slick promotional techniques to target young people.23,24 In 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Pub L No. 105–277) was passed, which mandates that commercial Web sites cannot knowingly collect information from children younger than 13 years. These sites are required to provide notice on the site to parents about their collection, use, and disclosure of children's personal information and must obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using, or disclosing this information.25 MARKETING TECHNIQUES Advertisers have traditionally used techniques to which children and adolescents are more susceptible, such as product placements in movies and TV shows,26 tie-ins between movies and fast food restaurants,18 tie-ins between TV shows and toy action figures or other products,7 kids' clubs that are linked to popular shows, and celebrity endorsements.27 Cellular phones are currently being marketed to 6- to 12-year-olds, with the potential for directing specific advertisers to children and preteens. Coca-Cola reportedly paid Warner Bros. Studios $150 million for the global marketing rights to the movie "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,"28 and nearly 20% of fast food restaurant ads now mention a toy premium in their ads.29 Certain tie-in products may be inappropriate for children (eg, action figures from the World Wrestling Federation or an action doll that mutters profanities from an R-rated Austin Powers movie). Children's advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which will be in place before 2010. In the near future, children watching a TV program will be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program.30 Interactive games and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology may also allow advertisers to collect vast amounts of information about children's viewing habits and preferences and target them on the basis of that information.31 SPECIFIC HEALTH-RELATED AREAS OF CONCERN Tobacco Advertising Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million/day ($11.2 billion/year) on advertising and promotion.32 Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having family members and peers who smoke33 and can even undermine the effect of strong parenting practices.34 Two unique and large longitudinal studies have found that approximately one third of all adolescent smoking can be attributed to tobacco advertising and promotions.35,36 In addition, more than 20 studies have found that children exposed to cigarette ads or promotions are more likely to become smokers themselves.37,38 Recent evidence has emerged that tobacco companies have specifically targeted teenagers as young as 13 years of age.39 Alcohol Advertising Alcohol manufacturers spend $5.7 billion/year on advertising and promotion.40 Young people typically view 2000 beer and wine commercials annually,41 with most of the ads concentrated in sports programming. During prime time, only 1 alcohol ad appears every 4 hours; yet, in sports programming, the frequency increases to 2.4 ads per hour.42,43 Research has found that adolescent drinkers are more likely to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.44–50 Given that children begin making decisions about alcohol at an early age—probably during grade school50—exposure to beer commercials represents a significant risk factor.46,50 Minority children may be at particular risk.51"" relevant website: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... bam! vote for me

positive: Drug Commercials I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.

positive: Drug Commercials There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.

positive: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand. In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.   [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

positive: Alcohol advertisement should be banned due to insufficient information THank you for posting your case. My opponent states tries to counter my case by stating "I'd question strongly whether there is anyone of reasonable intelligence and age who lacks awareness of the substance"; however, at no point in my case did i state that people where unaware of this substance, i simply stated that alcohol entices the viewers. My opponent went further in stating that "it has no effect on the their awareness that alcohol exists." This statement is absolutely false. When looking at the world today, we find that technology such as television has completely taken over our children and adolescent life, now these children might have known about alcohol to some extent, but when presented with alcohol advertisement, we find that these same kids now know the names of ten different brands of alcohol and why each brand differ from one another. "Research suggests that children and adolescents tend to learn more about alcohol from television and beer advertising than from more balanced sources such as parents, leaving them more knowledgeable about brands of beer than about potential health risks associated with drinking. The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol, 2000." (http://www.media-awareness.ca...) In his first point, my opponent list several social events in which alcohol is present as well as giving us a formula in which ethanol is created, however interesting this may seem, it has noting to do with advertising alcohol and why we "should not" ban alcohol. "The pro case was never specific as to what these risks and what level of ignorance exists. " My opponent makes this statement in his second point. When alcohol advertisement does not present us the viewers with any facts as to what the risk of alcohol poses to yourself and the society. It fails to mention the chain of problems associated with drinking such as accidents, loss of judgement and unsafe sex. Above we find a fine example of an advertisement that rather than informing people, it encourages people to go out and drink. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Finally My opponent tackle in which he deems a "Fascinating theory with 0 evidence presented to support it." My opponent goes on in giving several evidence of his own in an effort to prove me wrong; however, as you probably noted, all his evidence are outdated. This is a new generation and with every new generation, comes a new habit/behavior. Evidence: "Researchers are examining other environmental influences as well, such as the impact of the media. Today alcohol is widely available and aggressively promoted through television, radio, billboards, and the Internet. Researchers are studying how young people react to these advertisements. In a study of 3rd, 6th, and 9th graders, those who found alcohol ads desirable were more likely to view drinking positively and to want to purchase products with alcohol logo" (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... ( January 2006) Here in the UK, psychologists at the University of Hertford have been investigating children's responses to TV alcohol advertising (Nash et al, 2009). They showed that children as young as 7 years old like alcohol advertisements on TV – especially ones with humour, cartoon format, animals and special characters. Secondly, recent study in Australia (Winter et al, 2008) found that children and under-age teenagers are currently exposed to "unacceptably high levels of alcohol advertising on television" (presumably because they are watching TV after the 9pm watershed). However, it should be emphasised, as noted in the introduction, that cartoon format, animals and special characters that could be appealing to those under the legal drinking age, are not permitted by EU, US or Australasian regulatory bodies for example. As Smith and Foxcroft conclude, "we now have stronger empirical evidence to inform the policy debate on the impact of alcohol advertising on young people." This article is available from: http://www.biomedcentral.... com/1471-2458/9/51 Youth who saw more alcohol advertisements on average drank more (each additional advertisement seen increased the number of drinks consumed by 1% [event rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.02]). Youth in markets with greater alcohol advertising expenditures drank more (each additional dollar spent per capita raised the number of drinks consumed by 3% [event rate ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.01- 1.05]). Examining only youth younger than the legal drinking age of 21 years, alcohol advertisement exposure and expenditures still related to drinking. Youth in markets with more alcohol advertisements showed increases in drinking levels into their late 20s, but drinking plateaued in the early 20s for youth in markets with fewer advertisements. Conclusion: Alcohol advertising contributes to increased drinking among youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160:18-24 I belief this is enough evidence to prove my case to be a true one. CX: 1) i bvelieve i have provided enough evidence to prove this theory. 2)Drunk driving, loss of judgement e.t.c. The Youtube videos. 3) Evidence above. CX2: What are the benefits of alcohol advertisement. Do these advertisement affect kids view on alcohol (include evidence) Can you provide at least one alcohol commercial in which the risk associated with alcohol are presented. (by the alcohol producers not anti-alcoholic movements.) In conclusion, my opponent tries to counter all my arguments as to why alcohol advertisement should be banned; however, he failed to present a single reason as to why alcohol advertisement should not be banned thus failing to meent his burden of proof.

negative: God Speaking To Humans Directly PRO - and I dont inderstand what you are talking about im accordance to "everyone says he got the holt spirit all standing on opposite ways.."Well some say jesus is God, some say he isnt, some say he is the father and some say he is part of the trinity... there are many sects, if you consider them all as christians, why we muslims 2 billion are different from "christians"? we also believe in Jesus so what?

negative: Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...

negative: Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’

negative: The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the prescription of antibiotics. I accept. Thanks to whiteflame for the advice throughout the tournament, and thanks to Skepticalone for instigating.

negative: The U.S. Federal Government should restrict the prescription of antibiotics. Due to personal reasons and unforseen circumstances, I will not be able to complete this debate with Skepticalone. All points should go to my opponent. Thanks once again to my opponent, bsh1, and whiteflame. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

negative: Prohibition doesn't work Prohibition works. It stops people getting hold of drugs easily. People have to go through dealers and smoke privately or take drugs or inject privately, as they will be arrested if public. The most that the law can do is to intervene publicly. Legalise one drug and you will have to legalise them all! Legalise weed and soon estacy and acid for instance, then heroin and crack cocaine. The whole reason we had these criminal sanctions for drug-taking is to prevent it.

negative: God Speaking To Humans Directly God Most Definitely Does talk to people other than prophets directly. I have many associates who I can guarentee are not prophets. All christians can have a prophetic on some level, but that doesnt make them prophets . But God can speak to anybody,, for example Moses wasnt a prophet God spoke to him,, Solomon wasnt a prophet but God spoke to him ,, on many occasions throughout the bible God speaks to people who are not.prophetic in anyway

negative: Drugs should be legal Drugs should not be legal. Drugs of harder caliber drawl people powerless and incapacitate them. The danger can not be underestimated and the feds should pursue such potent drugs out of american life. Drugs with a peaceful recreational use should be regulated by state and its municipalities. Responsible Use, and Responses to Abuses --should be the focus on lesser mind-altering substances Beer and Wine should be left as is over-the-counter. Tobacco products could be re-regulated(cleaned up) with its consumers well-being coming first. Hard liquor should be tagged with an extra tax, giving way to.. Marijuana Reform..which is so CRUCIAL that one can only wonder why/how it has not already been undertaken in its sensible manner. I have a layout for its reformation..for another argument. Legalizing Drugs could only endanger every human being

negative: Drug Legalization Thanks, Danielle. =Legalization vs. Decriminalization= This is where the debate is going to be decided. As I see it, Danielle has two good arguments in favor of legalization over decriminalization: That the power of the drug cartel would decrease when faced with legal competition, and that legalized drugs could be "safe, legal, and taxed." I will address these two claims and in the process will show why some kind of decriminalization similar to the Portugal model is a superior policy. Re: CartelLet's talk first about the cartels and their monopoly on drugs. First of all, it's deeply questionable what this "safe and legal" competition would look like or if it would even materialize. Contra Danielle's repeated and absurd claim that alcohol is more dangerous than meth or heroin, big pharma is not going to open itself up to the legal, ethical, and social ramifications of marketing and selling recreational drugs that ruin bodies and lives. You cannot manufacture "safe" meth. It's probable that there would not be that meaningful of a deviation from the status quo, except without drug laws there's no pretense to arrest violent gang members before their turf wars mow down innocent civilians. But how serious is the problem of drug violence? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only around 4% of homicides are drug related, or around 600 deaths[1]--mostly against other drug dealers, so no great loss. Heroin killed 13,000 people in 2015. Other opioids killed close to 10,000. Prescription drug abuse killed 17,500[2]. Cocaine killed 5,800 in 2014. Meth killed 3,700[3]. It goes on and on, and this doesn't even mention the tremendous $193 billion social cost associated with the ruined bodies and lives of drug abusers--a number that is dwarfed by the incredible cost of more widespread *legal* drugs. Moreover, drug usage itself contributes greatly to crime. According to the same BJS report, 19% of victims of violent crime perceived their attackers to be under the influence of drugs on their own or in combination with alcohol, a pretty staggering statistic when you consider that only around 5 million people, 1.5% of the population, use non-marijuana illicit drugs[4].It's very easy to see how even slightly increased usage would outweigh this impact. And usage would clearly go up. Danielle outright conceded the economic theory explaining why usage would increase. She dropped and therefore conceded the argument that alcohol prohibition actually cut usage in half--and reversed a worrying trend of increasing alcoholism. Her source that argued how Opium use in China didn't increase is embarrassingly bad because it only looked at import data. I'm shocked Harvard would allow their name to be used with such a shoddy study--imports eventually did decrease, but that was only because domestic production increased by 118 times, from 300 tons before the first Opium War to 35,300 tons in 1906[5]. If China failed to effectively prohibit Opium, it was only because of their famously weak central government. By the 1930s, 10% of the population was addicted to Opium. Forced rehabilitation for addicts and death for dealers drove that number to 0[6]. Bans work, and Danielle's own arguments prove this. Danielle concedes that Marijuana use in Colorado went up drastically after legalization, but argues that use of other drugs wouldn't because users understand the risks. Except she also argues that alcohol is worse than meth or heroin. If prohibition doesn't work and people are educated enough to know the risks, why is an incredibly destructive, literally worse than heroin, but legal drug like alcohol used regularly by over half the population while the still widely prohibited but innocuous Marijuana is only used by 13%? It just doesn't add up. Drug use would massively increase if they were all legal and freely available. All of this ignores that forced rehabilitation would actually *decrease* use. Danielle notes in her first round how Portugal went from having one of the worst rates of drug overdose in Europe to the second lowest and that drug use continually declined. This isn't due to drugs becoming heavily regulated and "safe", because trafficking and manufacturing are still illegal in Portugal. It happened because the country pivoted towards a more humane approach to drug use and forced addicts into mandatory rehabilitation. Danielle wants us to be allowed to force addicts ruining their lives and bodies and becoming societal leeches into rehab only AFTER they've already hurt someone else. With legalization the only question is how much usage goes up. With decriminalization we are instead asking how much it goes *down*. It's incredibly obvious which is the better policy.Re: Regulation and safetyI don't totally disagree with this point. Sure, some deadly drugs that have horrific effects on the body might become marginally safer if they were regulated. How marginal? We don't know because Danielle has failed to provide any numbers, but all the regulation in the world cannot create "safe" heroin. Carfentanil, a drug 10,000 times more potent than Morphine that is used to tranquilize elephants[7], is never going to be safe for human consumption. How is it even possible to "regulate" such a thing? At the end of the day any increase in drug safety is going to be massively outweighed by the costs of increased consumption. And unlike decriminalization, regulation does nothing to DECREASE drug use, which ultimately leads to greater public safety. Portugal shows us that we don't need to make drugs freely available and then cross our fingers, hoping that we made them as safe as possible. We can drive drug overdoses and addiction down to the vanishing point by forcing users to get the help they need BEFORE it becomes a huge problem.Danielle vastly exaggerates how easy drugs are to get in this country. How many people even know what the deep web is, or how to use it? It's difficult to fully stamp out drugs but it's obvious that the threat of legal ramifications all throughout the supply chain obviously decreases both use and availability. Marijuana was always easy to get, but use still skyrocketed after legalization and has doubled nationwide as legalization and medical Marijuana created legal avenues for consumption[8]. Danielle argues that due to regulation, the price of drugs will actually go up after legalization. This is absurd. A blanket prohibition on production backed up by years in prison is far more costly to producers than regulations dictating drug purity. We know what prohibition does to the price of drugs--an analysis from the NCBI found that the price of alcohol, a drug that easily lends itself to long term storage and where millions of gallons already existed, tripled or quadrupled after the 18th amendment was passed[9]. Widespread availability increases the use of even hard drugs. Afghanistan, where the vast majority of the worlds Opium is produced, leads every other country in opium usage, and it's not even close[10].Danielle argues that we could decrease drug use through taxation. I'm glad that she agrees with me that increasing the costs drives usage down, but the costs of criminalization are far higher than she could reasonably expect a sin tax to be. The average tax on a pack of cigarettes is $1.69[11], less than 30% of the average cost of $5.51 a pack[12]. Criminalization drives the price of drugs up 300-400% without even considering the costs associated with getting caught. A tax this large would easily drive people back into the black market, negating her argument. Ultimately the state could never hope to recoup the horrific social and financial costs of drug addiction through taxation, especially after legalization drives an increase in use. Danielle also has no compelling answer to prescription drug abuse. She supports the regulation of Oxycontin or cancer drugs to try and make sure they're used properly. I'm surprised that Danielle doesn't see that this is the exact same rationale behind prohibition. Removing laws PROHIBITING certain people taking these drugs is a part of legalization. By advocating that we PROHIBIT people from taking medicinal drugs without a prescription Danielle is engaging in a MASSIVE contradiction and violating her own framework. Are we allowing the consumption of all drugs as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else or are we not? If we followed Danielles framework and legalized all drug use, we have to look to my impacts of self medication which kills tens of thousands of people around the world. Why should chemotherapy drugs be sold to non cancer patients?We're fortunate in that history has given us multiple experiments to draw conclusions from. We know that legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes are used far more often than even comparatively innocuous illicit drugs like Marijuana, a drug whose usage has rapidly increased as the legal restrictions have lessened. We know that Opium legalization in China was a total failure, with a staggering 10% of the population becoming addicts. We know that prohibition in the United States significantly decreased alcohol consumption. If we're interested in decreasing usage all examples of legalization have been manifest failures. On the other hand, we know that decriminalization in Portugal was a huge success by almost any metric and succeeded in driving usage and overdoses down. This is because users were legally FORCED to get help while the supply remained low because manufacturers and sellers were still punished for their crimes. Again, because it warrants repeating, the last time Opium was legalized in a country 1 in 10 eventually became addicted. There is absolutely nothing Danielle can possibly offer to outweigh even the RISK of tens of millions of new addicts, especially when we have another workable policy solution. The US should follow Portugal's example and implement policies that have proven effective. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...

negative: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 I completely spaced out that I had this round coming. I will pass (FF) this round. Judge on it how you please.

negative: Legalization of Marijuana My Opponent's argument is not factually backed My opponent says things, and I quote like;"marijuana is wasting money and causing wars,"Now, this is a very broad statement and is not factually based by any source, statistic, or even website. Therefore, for lack of evidence, presumed false. Another quote, "prescription drugs kill about 100,000 people in the world each year," May be true, but not backed up. I now ask my opponent to show me his sources when he states statistics and makes broad statements. Rebuttal to my opponent's argument in Round 2My opponents argument is not factual scientifically at all, and has no sources to back any assumptions up in his first opening argument. My main argument to my opponent is the fact that they assume that it will only be used as a medical drug. You have to understand that once legalized, people will have more access to get the drug. Whether they need it for medical use or not, once legalized for medical purposes it will be released in to the public through the government. Now, another theory is the abused system it will bring. With marijuana now being able to be given out for "pain removing" there will be "pot-heads" that abuse the system to get the drug that they think their body needs. My opponent says that when marijuana is legalized we will stop "wasting money" but I ask my opponent, what are we wasting money on? And how would marijuana being legalized make us stop, "wasting money" It makes no sense, for my opponent does not go into any further detail. My opponent just states it and move on. Now, my opponent tries to argue how if smoked safely, marijuana is safe. How is marijuana smoked safely? Earlier in the paragraph my opponent says, "Besides, Marijuana affect would have you pass out before you could try to overdose," [on prescription drugs]Yes, passing out seems perfectly safe to me, especially if I'm doing something with a group of people at a party, and I pass out. Seems very "safe," And also, my opponent claims that legalizing Marijuana would "stop the deaths caused by overdose on prescription drugs because they would pass out before they could overdose. " So, my opponent is saying that you wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs because you would be passed out because of marijuana. So if I just walked up to someone, knocked them out with a baseball bat, they wouldn't be able to abuse prescription drugs, simply because they are "passed out," The idea is ridiculous to assume because my opponent has to remember that when passed out, people do indeed wake up, and that is not going to stop them from overdosing. Therefore, no, marijuana does not help with prescription drug overdose. "There has not been any deaths directly related to marijuana," Now, this is one thing my opponent has a source cited for. Now, marijuana is considered by the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 as a gateway drug. Sure, marijuana may not be directly related to a persons death, but the drugs after such as cocaine definitely have been directly added to a persons death. According to Web definitions, a gateway drug is;"a habit-forming drug that is not addictive but its use may lead to the use of other addictive drugs; " So, according to the controlled substance act, marijuana is a habit forming drug, that may lead to the use of other addictive drugs. So yes, marijuana may not be directly the cause of someone's death, the drugs used because of marijuana do lead to death. In conclusion, marijuana is an indirect cause to death. My opponent goes in to a great effort to proclaim how dangerous and "toxic" prescription drugs are. In comparison, they are more regulated and researched than marijuana! Marijuana comes in a plastic bag from any dealer, a prescription drug comes in a certified package, with directions suitable for each patient written clearly, and in most cases they are prescribed by a doctor. Not only are they tested by numerous scientists, but also companies in the US such as The Food and Drug Administration, FDA. Therefore, making them more safe than marijuana. Final argument to my opponent In conclusion, my opponents opening argument was not based of scientific data or statistics. Causing no direct advantage to society by legalizing marijuana. As my opponent states no direct plan of action to legalize and the advantages it is, so I will state a few disadvantages. 1) A gateway drug, [as defined above] to extremely addictive and harmful drugs such as cocaine and heroin. 2) Leads to an unhealthy lifestyle. The use of marijuana may lead to what is socially claimed as a "pothead," Somebody always paying for marijuana and using it, usually spending a great deal of money on it, and not keeping a good hygiene. 3) Other terms of medical pain relief. There are many prescription drugs and even other plants that relieve pain in the body, so why do we pick a drug like marijuana, that causes unhealthy lifestyles and leads to further drugs, to relieve our pain when there are much other safer ways of going about it. 4) Controversial. A lot of people disagree and want nothing to do with marijuana, and would like to stay as far away with it as they could. I have yet to meet as person that would we ok with the idea of a marijuana store opening up next door or down the road. Many may even move! The basic idea is that people do not like it. 5) We just don't need it. We have survived as humans without it, and since it will only cause harm, why do we need it? It doesn't do things that other medicine wont do anyway, and really doesn't benefit society, so why do we need it? Now since I have responded to my opponents case and presented my own, I turn the debate over to my opponent. Sources; . http://civilliberty.about.com... . http://www.thefix.com...http://www.nytimes.com...Google Web Definitions

negative: The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.

negative: Buy Generic Medicines Online Buying generic medicine online is dangerous. There is no way to check for quality in the medicine, nor is there anyway to determine EXACTLY how accurate the ingredients are.

negative: Drugs should be decriminalized I suppose ill take up this debate, as my last debate was a bust. First, i will like to thank my opponent for making this debate. I will address his points first, and then move onto my own. "We've now been fighting a "war on drugs" for decades. People still do drugs." Sure, people still do drugs. Just like people still murder other people. I mean, has there been a single criminalization of anything, which completely deterred people from doing the said thing? I cant think of any. "It also tells us that 20% of our prison population is not in prison for harming someone or their property." I fail to see the logic in this argument, either. If the criterion for jail was simply harming someone else or their property, where would the drunk drivers go? Illegal Gun possession? These are all things that do not necessarily harm other people or their property, just like Drugs. Should we let these guys go as well? "If we were to allow drugs to be sold, it would certainly help the economy." Of course it would! Just like lowering the drinking age to 12, would also boost the economy, increase tax revenue. Imagine if kids didn't need to go out and get a fake ID, and could just walk into any liquor store and buy drinks. It would be great for the economy. Why don't we do it? Because, we have standards, and one of those standards is to decrease the possible number of accidents and mishaps. And one way to do this is to place restrictions. Currently, we have drugs that are available to the public if properly prescribed, such as Vicodin(an Opiate), Marijuana, MDMA(A.K.A Ecstasy, currently being used to treat disorders like PTSD)(1). But, much like alcohol, there are restrictions in place, to prevent just anyone going out and buying these. "Why would anybody support the drug cartels who kill you when you can get drugs for cheaper and without getting shot or losing fingers?" First of all, why would the drug cartels kill you for no reason? It would make more sense to keep you alive, especially if you were a customer. Secondly, here's the problem with your argument. Suppose that the Government produces specific factories to produce Drugs. What would the Government have to pay them? The standard minimum salary, of course. What do Drug Cartels have to pay their lowest employees? Whatever they want to, including below-minimum pay. They probably will, as all they care about is money. However, now we have a conundrum. We have the government-made Drugs, that cost hundreds of dollars(Just take a look at the US Drug market.)(2) And, we have the cheap-labor prices of the drug cartels. Now, if you were a Drug addict who spent most of your money on the safer, store-sold drugs, what would you do? "There are two groups of people who would be hurt by drug legalization: Drug dealers and police officers." This is possibly the most absurd argument that my opponent has made yet. Drug dealers will not be as hurt as you may think. Guns, which are legal, are a great example. Are gun-runners being hurt by the fact that there are legal Guns out there? Or has their business stayed the same, because it is more tedious and cost more to buy them legally?(3) As for officers, not at all. I will explain more later. Now, onto my own arguments. 1. My opponent has brought up Alcohol and prohibition as a parallel to this situation. I think it's a very poor example, and here's why. Alcohol, in moderation, has very little effect on the body. As with any substance, including Nutmeg, taking too much can be detrimental. However, small doses of Alcohol merely lightens moods and warms the body. Can the same be said of most illegal drugs? Here's a good question to ask. How many social drinkers are there? I would estimate that at least 90% of people who drink, are not Alcoholics or otherwise dependent on alcohol. Now, how many social Cocaine users are there? Clearly much less, to the point that i would guess 10% of people who use Cocaine are not addicted or dependent on it. This is, of course, because Cocaine is much, much, much more addictive than your average beer, and much harder to shave off. Its the reason why AA meetings are just that, meetings, while Drug rehabilitation clinics requires an entire building. Clearly Alcohol is a poor example, as it does not even come close to the detrimental effects of Drugs. 2. Many drugs, are prescription drugs for a reason. The main reasons, are: -Drug Conflicts. If you are taking two or more drugs, unless you are a doctor, you do not know how these drugs interact. Which is why, many prescription drugs are prescribed by a doctor who knows your family history and medical history. These drugs are in fact dangerous in the right combination. -Reduce addiction. As said above, there are many drugs that are highly addictive. To reduce this risk, the drugs are prescribed to people who actually need them, and in specific quantities so that there is no abuse of the drugs. Each time the patient wants a new bottle of said drugs, they require a new prescription, and this is usually given only after the Doctor re-examines the patient so that he can confirm the patient is still in pain or still requires the drug. -Previous history. LSD, is a great example, as it can trigger a schizophrenic episode in someone who never knew he had schizophrenia. Other examples include things like Low or High blood sugar, heart/lung/liver problems, etc etc. The list goes on. 3. This is by far the most important point I am going to make. Currently, the death toll and Alcohol-related accidents are so high, for reason. That is, Alcohol is readily available at almost any city block. Now, I've never tried drugs before, mainly because I have no idea where I would get my hands on them. Imagine if Drugs were sold as frequently as Alcohol? Wouldn't anyone agree that this would drastically increase the Drug-related accidents and deaths? Now, my opponent has previously mentioned that drug legalization would decrease the number of police officers. I said this was absurd, and here's why. The abundance of readily available drugs, might decrease the number of drug busts, but at a cost. It will also increase the number of drug-related accidents. Clearly we would still need as many police officers, to deal with these occurrences. Whether or not this means less, or more police officers, is up to speculation, but it is safe to say that the number will not change drastically, or at least as drastically as my opponent would hope. 4. This is possibly the most dangerous aspect of my opponents argument. If all drugs were legalized, this would mean the end of Prescription drugs. Drug companies would go wild. There are specific steps, processes, that a drug company must go through in order to have a drug accepted by the FDA(Food and Drug administration). This includes a strict regulation of drugs in order to see whether or not the drug will have adverse effects when mixed with other drugs. Now, it is not an understatement to say that on average, a drug company will spend a couple hundred million on drug research, clinical trials, testing, and approval from the FDA. Without this process, drug companies will go the cheaper, more profitable route of skipping that and going straight to clinical trials. No one can stop them, cause all drugs are legal! 5. I would like to ask my opponent a question. If we were to legalize all drugs, what would the restrictions be? Clearly we must put limits as to who can buy them. Sources: 1. http://www.mdma.net... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.answerbag.com...

negative: Drugs should be decriminalized "the police are wasting considerable force on moral criminals instead of property criminals. " Wow. You make it sound as if Police are spending more time busting into peoples houses just to search for drugs. Oh wait, police can't do that, cause of a little thing called probable cause. Yes, that is correct. Most Drug raids and busts, are either on people who are ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING/SELLING the drugs, or people who have committed OTHER crimes and drugs were merely an added offense. The former is illegal, even if Drugs become legalized, and the latter is more than simple "Moral criminals" who probably have committed property crimes. So yeah, my opponents argument is a bust. "But if you're addicted to a substance, you tend to care less, and your judgment tends to be impaired. " As mentioned above, rarely is anyone arrested SIMPLY for doing drugs. Its also why, for example, some sentences are NOT prison sentences but Rehab sentences. And yes, rehab centers do help in staving off addiction. But i find this argument laughable. First off, your judgment doesn't stay impaired after you've stopped using drugs. Secondly, maybe if you are a complete loner, you wouldn't care if you went to jail, but most people aren't. Thirdly, being in a prison where drugs are scarce, would make you care more, and I would like to think this is common sense. Especially if you were more addicted, you would have a harder time in jail. My opponents arguments just don't follow through. "Then they come out of jail and back to their drugs. " There are always repeaters. This is the same for ANY crime, including Theft, assault, and even murder. I believe my opponent has failed his argument in showing how the punishment is any more effective in deterring people, than any other crime. "So, for some people, that is indeed one beer. For some people, that's 5 beers. It's the same way with drugs. " Sorry, but no. If i have no drugs on me, but I've taken some Cocaine, and am still completely sober and lucid, I won't get arrested. There is no test for drug use beyond examination in a lab. The reason why the level of Alcohol is set at .08%, is because that is the determined limit of alcohol in a person's body to which he is lucid and sober enough to drive safely. If youve taken drugs and are completely lucid, there ARE no grounds to arrest you. But here's where the similarity ends. Most social drinkers do not require enough drinks to become so drunk that they cannot stand anymore. With Drugs, the psychological effect, the need to achieve the same high as before, exists much, much more strongly than with alcohol. It's why, as I said before, there are AA meetings and Drug Rehab clinics. This is the vital difference between drugs and alcohol. This is what my opponent fails to understand. "And clearly some people see a benefit is doing cocaine, since they do it. " Did you not read my argument, carefully? I clearly stated that we weigh the potential harm, with the benefits. The potential harm of Cigs, isn't as high as other drugs. If you've missed this part in your History Class, here's a recap. The reason why Russia and the U. S. A never started a nuclear third world war, is because BOTH had nukes and BOTH were afraid of M. A. D. That is, mutually assured destruction. These are benefits that outweigh the harm. The benefit o Cocaine is the high, but that is also the harm, because of the addictive and tolerance potential. The more you use Cocaine, the more you need to use in order to get the same high. This is hardly comparable to cigarettes. I used to be a casual smoker for 4 years, never needing to increase the number of puffs per day. And one day, I just quit, cold turkey. I could never say the same for Cocaine. "Alcohol affects many people very differently. " You are confusing affect with effect. Someone with a bad liver, or smaller people, will have a harder time breaking down alcohol, and therefore they will become drunk faster, and longer. But the sole effect is sobriety, with a difference in time. If only prescription drugs were this simple, your argument would hold some water. Prescription drugs, will AFFECT the body with DIFFERENT EFFECTS to different people. This is the Vital difference that you are failing to grasp regarding prescription drugs. "These are statistics for prescription drugs, which are legal already. "-You The point is, alcohol is something you can buy at any corner store in almost every city. Prescription drugs are not. Yet, even with such a STRICT restriction on prescription drugs, there are still MUCH more people who die from Presc. Drug overdoses than Alcohol overdoses. Clearly it is much simpler to overdose on Drugs than Alcohol, yes? This is, of course, after doctors TELL their patients how many to take in one day. Now, think if these prescription drugs made it onto the shelves, as easy to buy as alcohol? If you still cannot see the point, then you are beyond hope. "I know that people are being killed in the drug wars, and I know that the drug cartels are killing people. " But you have no idea who's getting killed, or why. If you don't know this, then clearly your previous statement is FALSE. "do you understand how high the prices are currently from drug dealers? " Sure, and unless these drug dealers are complete morons, if drugs become legal, they won't keep selling them for the current prices. And that's my point. Drug dealers, cartels, are capable of selling their product at LOWER PRICES than that of the government or private businesses. Cartels have already refined their process for purifying drugs, so no cost goes to R&D. Cartels don't need to hire people for minimum wages, cause the minimum wage is whatever the cartel wants it to be. This is my point. "the government is making sure that drug companies aren't harming you. It has nothing to do with you harming yourself" Actually, they're the same thing, and here's why. No one is forcing you to take drugs. You can, and people do, refuse to take medicine, vaccines, prescription drugs. Every drug has a label that LISTS ALL the possible harms and side-effects. These are risks. And the FDA exists to MINIMIZE these risks. By doing so, they minimize the possible HARM that you are doing to yourself. As stated above, it is YOUR decision to take the drugs. You can AVOID potentially harming yourself by refusing the drugs. Whether or not you are doing more harm to yourself by taking prescription drugs, is what the FDA is trying to limit. So yes, the FDA is there to limit you from harming yourself. "Aspirin is legal, is it not? " Acute aspirin overdose has a death rate of 2%. Very rarely is aspirin overdose lethal. "Relative safety" Again, my opponent has advocated only a single restriction, that is, age. One of the main reasons why prescription drugs require a doctor, is because the doctor EXPLAINS which drug is best, and what NOT to mix the drugs with. My opponent seems to prescribe to "It's their body, i don't care". I suppose, if you don't care about someone who his stabbing himself in the leg, and have the audacity to simply walk past them without a second glance, then people doing drugs and overdosing, people with high blood pressure, taking a drug that had the side-effect of increased blood pressure but wasn't notified because the drug that used to be prescription is now free to sell at any convenience store, wouldn't bother him at all. But it bothers me. I actually do care if people are doing harm to themselves. And quite a few people agree with me, or they wouldn't bother dispatching police, a government organization, to talk down people who are about to commit suicide. My opponent is wrong. The government does care if we do harm to ourselves, or they wouldn't have forced Cigarette companies to label their product as harmful. And so do I.

negative: Drugs should be decriminalized Thank you for your most excellent response! "I suppose ill take up this debate, as my last debate was a bust." Tell me about it... That happens to me a lot... So I'm holding you to this :-) "Sure, people still do drugs. Just like people still murder other people. I mean, has there been a single criminalization of anything, which completely deterred people from doing the said thing? I cant think of any." The specter of punishment does deter people from stealing whatever they want and shooting anyone they don't like. That's why we have laws. They don't exist so that people who do it can still do it and only be punished after they do it, they exist to scare people into not doing things. Obviously it won't stop everybody (although it is illegal to whistle underwater in Portland, and I don't think anyone is breaking that law), but any effective law will carry a punishment that is sufficient to keep people from doing the crime (though it is thankfully limited by the cruel and unusual punishment clause). There comes the issue with drugs. You probably won't get caught doing drugs, or if you do, you are probably already addicted, so no punishment would really be a very successful deterrent, short of something that would absolutely be cruel and unusual. It was the same way with prohibition. I know you said it was different, and I will cover that later, but in that neither are particularly enforceable, they are very similar. "These are all things that do not necessarily harm other people or their property, just like Drugs. Should we let these guys go as well?" Why is drunk driving illegal? Because it's really dangerous and it puts others at a higher risk. I know you will say that drugs do too, but notice that drunk driving is illegal, and drinking is not. "Why don't we do it? Because, we have standards, and one of those standards is to decrease the possible number of accidents and mishaps." Well, there are a lot of laws that restrict the behavior of children. Why the drinking age isn't 18 is beyond me, but children are different. But we're talking about adults here. The same adults who can smoke and drink. "But, much like alcohol, there are restrictions in place, to prevent just anyone going out and buying these." But these have to have a prescription from a doctor. To drink alcohol, you just have to be 21. "First of all, why would the drug cartels kill you for no reason? It would make more sense to keep you alive, especially if you were a customer." Okay, I'm sorry that I don't know the ins and outs of drug dealing. Shall I go do field research before I finish this debate? And the truth is that drug cartels are dangerous. You don't have to pay too much attention to know what's going on in Mexico right now. You can twist my point however you want, but I know I wouldn't want to do business with these people if I had another option... "Suppose that the Government produces specific factories to produce Drugs." We have a really really big deficit right now. How much do we care about profitability? So we can pay the workers at the factories more than minimum wage, but we don't have to make a profit selling the drugs. Alternatively, we could give it to private businesses and regulate it without tax until the bad guys have lost most of their business, and then we can move in and make money off of this. There are strategic ways of doing things. "Or has their business stayed the same, because it is more tedious and cost more to buy them legally?" This is a very good point. But drugs don't work the same as guns. Because guns are used to potentially kill people, it's necessary to run background checks and get licenses and stuff. But the illegal cigarette and alcohol business is not doing as well, and that's how the illegal drug business would be. "Can the same be said of most illegal drugs?" This is a moot point. I was comparing prohibition to this in that the law is clearly not doing a particularly good job of fulfilling the cause that it exists for. The government doesn't exist to stop our bad habits, so it doesn't really matter how bad it is for you. "Now, how many social Cocaine users are there? Clearly much less, to the point that i would guess 10% of people who use Cocaine are not addicted or dependent on it." This is a very good use of a circumstantial point. Yes, most alcohol drinkers are probably very responsible, social alcohol drinkers. Now, tell me, how many cigarette smokers are social smokers who are not addicted? Now, I know that doesn't fall under prohibition, but as I said, I was referring to the lack of success with prohibition, and not so much about the specific nitty gritty. "Which is why, many prescription drugs are prescribed by a doctor who knows your family history and medical history. These drugs are in fact dangerous in the right combination." This is a very good point. Still, how many people already die of accidental (or, perhaps, not accidental) overdoses? This is really not very different. And the great thing about drug packaging is that it gives us the technology to explain what it is not mixable with. And this wouldn't eliminate doctors, so it would still be possible to talk to them. Not to mention, it would be easier to talk to them. Even though the doctor's office is a confidential area, you still might not be comfortable telling the doctor that you've been taking illegal drugs, so they wouldn't know that when they prescribe you something that doesn't sit well with cocaine. If it were legal, then it would be quite a bit easier to tell the doctor. "To reduce this risk, the drugs are prescribed to people who actually need them, and in specific quantities so that there is no abuse of the drugs." Again, as I said, it's not the government's job to monitor my behavior. They let me get addicted to nicotine (though I choose not to), but they won't let me get addicted to marijuana (which, if I remember correctly, is actually much less addictive than cigarettes) or morphine? Why just one? "LSD, is a great example, as it can trigger a schizophrenic episode in someone who never knew he had schizophrenia. Other examples include things like Low or High blood sugar, heart/lung/liver problems, etc etc. The list goes on." Again again, that's not the government's problem. It is proven that a diet high in saturated fat and LDL cholesterol will put you at a much higher risk for heart attacks, but that's completely legal. It's proven that smoking puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc., but it's legal. "Wouldn't anyone agree that this would drastically increase the Drug-related accidents and deaths?" Yes directly, but not indirectly. Right now drug dealers sell drugs for a lot of money, and addicts will do a lot to obtain said money. They wouldn't need to do that at the scale they do if you could buy them at a reasonable price from a store. "Now, my opponent has previously mentioned that drug legalization would decrease the number of police officers." Yes I did. That was probably my least important point. "it is safe to say that the number will not change drastically, or at least as drastically as my opponent would hope." Fair enough... How does this negate the resolution? "Without this process, drug companies will go the cheaper, more profitable route of skipping that and going straight to clinical trials." We can still make them go through rigorous safety testing. We can legalize anything with restrictions and regulations. Point completely negated. "If we were to legalize all drugs, what would the restrictions be?" Only adults can buy them. They have to be tested and approved. Similar to current alcohol and cigarette laws (though I would prefer if they all were switched to food safety laws). I would write more, but, alas, 8,000 characters only allows me so much space. I am excited to see your response!

negative: Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America. But, anyways, I don't think that there is such thing as controlled legalization of drugs. There are so many drugs out there, that it is almost impossible to control such an amount of illegal drugs in America. There are about 14.8 million americans that use Marijuana, 2.4 million users of Cocaine, and 731,002 users of Methamphetamine. There are many undercover vendors that supply them, and since there are so much drugs in this country, its almost impossible to control. If drugs are ruining lives, how is it benifical to America? Please post an argument answering that.

negative: allow weed We (the united states) currently have a lot of states that do NOT allow marijuana (weed) for any purpose and I think this is stupid do you think it should be legal? It's NOT addictive. (despite what some might say)

negative: Prohibition on drugs should stop http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Marijuana is used to treat over 230 illnesses by prescription. No other drugs is used to treat such a wide variety of illnesses. The prohibition has been proven to be a waste of tax payer money as well as the lives of law enforcement. Prohibition causes the drugs to be pushed to the underground market which creates criminal enterprises. People might think that prohibition is effective but the opposite has proven to be true. Im not suggesting that drugs not have rules and regulations they should be treated the same as alcohol.

negative: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.

negative: advertisment aimed at children should be banned advertisment should not be banned

negative: Legalize all drugs to legalize all drugs would be the end of life as we know it. it would put a lot of creeps back on the streets. crime rates will go up to probly 4 times what they are now. the reason we have a law against them is to keep the citizens safe. most accident either vehicular or not are caused by drug related things. also the reason that we have laws against drugs is because it cause people to do goofy and dangerous things. PCP or angel dust cause you to get butt naked and climb to high heights. meth makes you smell like cat pee and will make you look like crap in the end. cocaine makes you tweak a lot and can make you do something without anything being remembered. drugs cause people do do certain thing that is a threat to society. so I end this debate with drugs being all legalized would jeopardize the safety of all people and other thing around the person doing them. I think they should not be legalized at all unless for a medical reason like pot is.

negative: Drug Legalization Resolved: The USFG should legalize all recreational drugs 4000 character debate, cuz I don't have the time or energy to do anything more than that. Apply in the comments section if you're interested. Will select an opponent within a few days. Accepting the debate without my consent warrants an automatic loss. The types of recreational drugs covered in this debate are listed here: http://patient.info...

negative: God Speaking To Humans Directly Christianity is not just the belief that Jesus was real its the belief in the trinity and that he died as a sacrifice for our sins. Its the belief that God The Father is the one and only God and ultimate authority and power. The belief in the Bible , The truth nothing more nothing less

negative: drugs MMMMMMH GIRL THATS WHAT I THOUGHT BECAUSE I GAVE A BETTER ARGUMENT hehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehe madelyn ellie Rasch

negative: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Before I begin, please allow me to clarify that I sympathise with the plight of my opponent's family member, and that I am equally angry at the poor conduct of her doctor. However, this will not affect the way I approach the resolution. As my opponent has not proposed a formal resolution in the form of a declarative statement, I will take the topic sentence of his paragraph as the resolution:The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Thus the burden of proof is on my honourable opponent to prove that doctors have to bear the greatest responsibility in the rise in prescription drug abuse. As my opponent has not delineated a set of rules for the debate, I will take the liberty of presenting my opening arguments and refuting some of the arguments my opponent has presented. I will welcome any attempts to present and clarify the rules of this debate by my opponent, for (s)he is the instigator. Constructive arguments1) Doctors are not responsible for the underlying causes of drug abuseThe motives behind prescription drug abuse can generally be summarised thus: (1) To feel good or 'high', and experience the metal effects of the drug To relax or relief pressure To reduce appetite, boost vigilance or improve academic performance As a result of addiction To 'fit in' Even if doctors did not misprescribe, as long as these motives exist, there would always be ways for drug abusers to obtain drugs, such as by receiving drugs from those who have not fully used their medication during previous treatment processes. Conversely, without such motives, there would be no incentive for drug abusers to abuse drugs, even if there were doctors prescribing drugs improperly. This shows that doctors should not be held responsible for drug abuse itself, which should be blamed on the abusers. The rise in drug abuse should be attributed to reasons why more people are having such motivations, and not to the doctors who are simply doing their job by prescribing drugs. 2) Doctors are not responsible for the availability of drugs to abusers. The majority of teenagers who abuse prescription drugs get their drugs from relatives or friends who have been prescribed the drugs; thus doctors did not prescribe any drugs to them. (2) Thus doctors are not responsible for the fact that they have these drugs at their disposal. Even in the event where the abuser was prescribed the medicine and decided to over-dose or to use the drugs for other purposes (such as 'getting high'), the doctors have only prescribed drug according to the patient's needs: if those drugs had been taken exactly as prescribed, there would be no quantity of medicine available for future abuse. Therefore, they should not be held responsible for the availability of excess medicine, which ought to be the fault of the patients who did not take drugs according to doctors' instructions. Rebuttals 1) Explanation at the beginning'So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. 'My opponent states, at the beginning of the paragraph, that the prescription of narcotics by doctors causes the rise in prescription drug abuse. However, (s)he has not yet given a clear explanation of how this has happened. It appear that (s)he has not explained this causal link clearly. By 'I am baffled at how', (s)he seems to imply that the causal link is obvious and 'goes without saying'; however, I fail to see this relationship. 2) Example of the family member's incidentMy opponent has given a detailed account of the personal experience of a loved one. However, I contend that one isolated example alone cannot prove the resolution, which is on the rise of prescription drug abuse, and implies the rise of drug abuse in society as a whole. To conclude that rampant prescription drug abuse is caused by doctors is, therefore, to over-generalise. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that his or her family member's case was related to drug abuse at all. She did not 'abuse' her drug in any way; she was simply following the prescriptions of a registered doctor, and in fact, she used fewer drugs than needed on some days. This alone is sufficient to prove that she had not abused the drugs. My opponent states that she had become addicted to the narcotics. While this may be true - it may not be, for she has terminated all her uses of narcotics and resolved not to utilise such medicine again - it does not follow that this is a case of drug abuse, which is the action of using drugs one should not be using, or using drugs in excess quantities. Addition is merely a state in which a body has become dependent on a substance or activity, or to be more precise, 'Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance' (3), and there is no necessary implication that the addict acts on the addiction. ObservationsMy final observation is that even if my opponent can show that this type of misprescription leads to drug abuse, it does not necessarily result in a rise thereof; it is therefore his/her responsibility to show that there has been an increase in misprescriptions which has led to an increase (positive change) in the number of drug abusers. (1) . http://cliniquemedecine.com...(2) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

negative: Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized Illegal drugs should be legalized what do you think?

negative: All drugs should be legalized Legalizing drugs would make them much safer. When we decide to legalize drugs, we can make the process of getting and using drugs safer. By passing drugs through the government, instead of passing drugs through drug dealers, we can make sure that dirty needles and like aren't used when drugs are being used. Also by passing drugs through the government, we can make it so that when users buy certain drugs, they know that that drug is what they"ll be getting, instead of another drug advertised as the drug they"re buying. We can make taxes off of drugs. By passing drugs through the government, the government can impose taxes on drugs, providing a major boost to the economy.

negative: Atheism is Directly Responsible for an Atrocity I agree to the terms of this argument. My example of an atheist atrocity is the Holodomor.

negative: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I extend all arguments. I look forward to my opponent's ensuing arguments and rebuttals.

negative: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.

negative: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Hope my opponent shows up eventually.