The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. It raises all kinds of interesting questions. Why do we criminalize certain bad behaviors, but not others? What can we safely assume about the criminal justice system or the society in question?
Report this Argument Pro Hello everyone. I'd like to thank my opponent for presenting the debate. Today I will be arguing for the resolution "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.
There is a cross between the two in my opponents argumentation and my first order of business will be to make a distinction between the two terms, how they apply to the resolution and how the distinction between the two affects the discussion of the debate.
While the case I am arguing is consistent, that abuse of illegal drugs is a matter of public health, my opponent attempts to take a neutral position make the case for why both of these must be considered, and not one or the other.
He says that the resolution appeals in his favor, but nowhere in the resolution does it appeal to one side or the other it doesn't say, "must be treated SOLELY as a matter of public health" or "solely of criminal justice". In the interests of the debate, I will continue to argue that the ABUSE of illegal drugs ought to be treated solely as a matter of public health, rather than solely as an act of criminal justice as the resolution implies.
To start the debate, I will introduce the purpose of anti-drug policy today.
I would like to then review what my opponent has said and see if these points still stand. So, let us begin. What is integral to this debate is to understand what the purpose of anti-drug policy is. The purpose of anti-drug policy is clear, to nullify illicit drug use.
There are four essential pillars to reducing illicit drug abuse: I would like to present the following two rebuttals in favor of my case: My opponent has misunderstood how the addiction really affects the role in which responsibility plays when the act of abusing the drug takes place.
The opponent used sources to indicate claims like, "most addicts should be responsible for most criminal behavior motivated by addiction, but … addiction can in some cases affect the person's ability to grasp and be guided by reason.
Yet, criminal law is about actions and not about genetics. While I contest, addiction is not a hereditary disease it's not something you genetically inheritbut something that develops from prolonged cyclically reinforced drug abuse the more you do it, the more you are addicted. Thus, it is appropriate to discern, criminal law is not about conscious actions.
Health care is more appropriate to deal with the issue because it treats addiction properly - as a disease and not a crime.
What we have to understand is that it is not the drug abuse that is the enemy but the drug itself. After a person is afflicted with drug addiction, when they are seeking treatment and want help, where ought we put them?
To jails or to treatment beds? To law enforcement or to health professionals? The War On Drugs. Championed by president Ronald Reagan, the War on Drugs is a movement primarily focused on law enforcement and criminal justice to deter and ultimately stop illicit drug abuse.
However, it has been constantly concluded by the media, the public at large and even governments themselves that this is a wrong approach. What I will be arguing in this argument is why criminal justice sometimes does not work with treatment, but against it.
It's really in the title, WAR on drugs. In the War on Drugs, we must discern who is the enemy, and it's very clear - the enemy includes the addicts, the users, the dealers, anyone who poses a threat.
However, addiction is a blight, addicts are not. Addicts are human beings who need to be treated like diseased human beings, human beings who need help. They need to be treated as those who are sick, not as "criminals", not as "drug users". I've attested in my previous point, when the addiction gets so serious, when the drug abuse hits its critical point - the user is no longer using the drug, the drug is using them.
And so, these people conscious of what is happening to them, they are conscious of the burden of the drug, both on their mind, their state of being psychologically but also physiologically - the danger of cardiac arrest, liver failure, heart failure - of their impending mortality.
These individuals need to be treated, not stigmatized. They need to be put into treatment, not into jails.Oct 04, · Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal ashio-midori.com: Resolved. Oct 23, · Putting drug "abusers" (as opposed to "users") in jail is a quick fix, a bandaid solution.
I don't think people wake up one day and suddenly decide to become junkies; there is almost always some major underlying issue that drives them to find a means to forget or escape (childhood abuse of some kind is a common reason). Oct 26, · The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice- aff case?
Why should the abuse of illegal drugs be a Status: Resolved. Drugs & the Brain Wallet Card: This tool is designed for people leaving criminal justice facilities and transitioning back to a less structured environment.
To prepare these people to return to their home environment, counselors can customize this tool to help identify triggers that could prompt a drug relapse. Resolved: "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice." I accept my opponent's value (or JUSTICE is my value) My value criterion is must maximize total net benefits to the common good.
Because drug abuse stems from a knowledgeable person committing an illegal action, it ought to be treated through the criminal justice system in order to maintain governmental legitimacy, deter crime, .