The issue of drug legalization in the U.S. has continued to be a contentious issue for many years. The Intelligence Squared debate on the topic features arguments from Paul Butler, the former federal prosecutor, and Asa Hutchinson, a former administrator in the Drug Enforcement Administration. The debaters also featured expert opinions from Nick Gillespie and Theodore Dalrymple during the discussion. Both sides provided significant arguments with extensive explanations, but arguments against the motion were more persuasive.
The first reason why arguments for the motion were less persuasive is that debaters significantly underestimate the effects of drugs compared to alcohol and nicotine. One of the arguments suggested that nicotine kills more people than drugs, so nicotine use should also be banned (Legalize drugs, 2012). However, the argument overlooks the fact that there is no comparison between the audience of people exposed to nicotine and people exposed to drug use. Thus, nicotine use can rarely have significant negative effects on an individual’s health except for the cases of long-term use. In contrast, drug use can cause substantial adverse effects much faster than smoking. Moreover, even though alcohol use is often present in violent crimes and traffic accidents, alcohol alters the mechanisms of human reaction to signals, while drugs affect deeper levels of an individual’s consciousness. Thus, comparing alcohol and nicotine with drugs reduced the credibility of the side debating the motion.
Furthermore, I find that the arguments from the side against the motion were more accurate in considering the impact of drug legalization on society. The problem of alcohol and drug use in teenagers presents a substantial issue for the country. The legalization of drugs would make matters worse by making drugs even more accessible for children and teenagers, whose safety and health are important for the nation’s future well-being. Thus, I find that the arguments against the legalization of drugs presented a more realistic view of the possible consequences.
In conclusion, the fact that I consider the argument base of one side more convincing does not mean that I do not agree with the opinion of the opposite side. It was a valuable experience to get acquainted with the negative effects of the drug market on the life of society and minority groups. However, there can be other less radical ways to address the issue than the legalization of drugs.
Reference
Legalize drugs.(2012). Intelligence Squared.