Pope High School Stock AC

Clay Stewart

A. Definitions
1) Public Health1

The art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health by organized
community effort.

2) Criminal Justice2

The system of law enforcement, involving police, lawyers, courts, and corrections, used for all stages of
criminal proceedings and punishment.

3) Abuse3

Improper or excessive use or treatment.

4) Treat4

To regard and deal with in a specified manner.

5) Illegal Drugs5

An illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness.

1
Merriam-Webster
2
Dictionary.com
3
Merriam- Webster
4
Merriam-Webster
5
Merriam-Webster (Under Entry for Drugs)
1
Pope High School Stock AC
Clay Stewart

B. Framework
The Value for the Round is Morality. This is the value because:

1) The Word Ought In The Resolution Signifies Moral Obligation

Richard Robinson of the Royal Institute of Philosophy writes:67

The moral ought and ought not connect[s] directly with right and wrong. They do not connect directly with
good and bad. It is not true that we morally ought to do good and ought not to do what is bad. We ought to do what is
right, that is, what we are required to do: and we ought not to do what is wrong, that is, what we are forbidden to do.
We cannot go further and bring in good and bad, because good and bad are far wider than the
sphere of our duties. It is good to keep your garden beautiful; but you have no duty to keep your
garden beautiful. It is bad to dance badly; but you are entitled to dance badly . If a man says we ought to
do good, we can ask him whether we ought to do all good, or do good all the time, or do some good sometimes. The most he
can say is that a man ought to do some good sometimes. “It is good to do what you ought to do” is true; but
“You ought to do what it is good to do” is false; and “You ought to do what it is best to do” is false. Ought and
ought not are [is] not used in the statement of, or the deduction from, all kinds of law and rule. The legal law
does not say that a man “ought” to pay income-tax; nor does the collector deduce from the legal law
and your income what you “ought” to pay. Nor do the rules of soccer say that only the goalkeeper “ought” to use his
hands. It is primarily the moral law that expresses itself and its consequence by means of ought and ought
not.

The Value-Criterion for the Round is Upholding Moral Obligations. This is the Value-Criterion for Two
Reasons:

1) Within the Context of Criminal Justice, It Is Unjust For the State to Punish People Without a
Reason. Thus, We Have No Obligation To Consider Drugs a Matter of Criminal Justice

Huemer One, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, 20048:

it is unjust for
Why think the drug laws are unjust? Husak's argument invokes a principle with which few could disagree:
the state to punish people without having a good reason for doing so. We have seen the failure of
the most common proposed rationales for drug prohibition. If nothing better is forthcoming, then
we must conclude that prohibitionists have no rational justification for punishing drug users. We
have deprived hundreds of thousands of people of basic liberties and subjected them to severe hardship conditions, for no
good reason.

6
Robinson, Richard. “Ought and Ought Not” Royal Institute of Philosophy. Philosophy, Vol. 46, No. 177 . pp. 193-202. July
1971.
7
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University
8
"Imprisoning Nonviolent Drug Users Is Unjust." America's Prisons. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010.
Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.
2
Pope High School Stock AC
Clay Stewart
2) We Have An Obligation To Consider The Use and Abuse of Illegal Drugs as a Matter of
Public Health

Lynch, Director of the Cato Institute, 20059:

Drug policy in America needs to be reinvented, starting with a tabula rasa. Policymakers ought to
address the issue in an open, honest, and mature manner. A growing number of Americans are coming to the
conclusion that the law should treat substances such as marijuana and cocaine the same way it
treats tobacco, beer, and whiskey: restricting sales to minors and jailing any user who endangers the safety of others
(by, for example, operating an automobile while under the influence). Education, moral suasion, and noncoercive
social pressure are the only appropriate ways to discourage adult drug use in a free and civil
society.

C. The Case
Observation One: The Legalization of Illegal Drugs Affirms the Resolution
1) By definition, public health is not just the science dealing with treatment of disease, but with
the protection and improvement of the health of the community. Thus, because drug
legalization both protects and improves the health of the community, it is a matter of public
health, affirming the resolution.

2) Criminal justice concerns itself with law enforcement and criminal proceedings/ punishment.
As such, legalization is not a matter of criminal justice, because drugs would no longer be a
matter of law enforcement, criminal proceedings, or criminal punishment.

3) Legalizing drugs fulfills the dualistic burden of the Affirmative because legalization is a matter
of public health, not of criminal justice.

9
Lynch, Timothy. "Drug Prohibition Is Counterproductive." Drug Legalization. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
3
Pope High School Stock AC
Clay Stewart
Contention One: Illegal Drugs Ought to Be Legalized

1) It Is Absurd To Punish Drug Users and Abusers For the Potential Effects of Drug Use

Huemer Two, Professor of Philosphy at the University of Colorado, 200410:

Imagine that [a hypothetical citizen] Howard—... for reasons having nothing to do with drugs—
does not value freedom, nor does he embrace personal responsibility. It is unclear exactly what this means,
but, for good measure, let us suppose that Howard embraces a totalitarian political ideology and denies the existence of free
will. He constantly blames other people for his problems and tries to avoid making decisions. Howard is a college student
with a part-time job. However, he is a terrible student and worker. He hardly ever studies and frequently misses assignments,
as a result of which he gets poor grades.... Howard comes to work late and takes no pride in his work. Though he does
nothing against our current laws, he is an inattentive and inconsiderate spouse and parent. Nor
does he make any effort to participate in the life of his community, or the promise of America. He
would rather lie around the house, watching television and cursing the rest of the world for his problems. In short,
Howard does all the bad things to his family, friends, coworkers, and society that the ONDCP says
may result from drug use. And most of this is voluntary. Should Congress pass laws against what Howard is
doing? Should the police then arrest him, and the district attorney prosecute him, for being a loser? Once again, it seems
absurd to suppose that we would arrest and jail someone for behaving in these ways, undesirable
as they may be. Since drug use only has a chance of causing one to behave in each of these ways, it
is even more absurd to suppose that we should arrest and jail people for drug use on the grounds
that drug use has these potential effects.

2) Individuals Have a Natural Right to Control Their Own Bodies and Minds; Thus, Drug Use
and Abuse Is Permissible

Huemer Three, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, 2004:

it is not just that we are punishing people for no good reason. We

But I want to say something stronger:
are punishing people for exercising their natural rights. Individuals have a right to use drugs. This
right is neither absolute nor exceptionless; suppose, for example, that there existed a drug which, once ingested, caused a
significant proportion of users, without any further free choices on their part, to attack other people without provocation. I
would think that stopping the use of this drug would be the business of the government. But no existing drug satisfies this
description. Indeed, though I cannot take time to delve into the matter here, I think it is clear that the drug laws cause far
more crime than drugs themselves do. The idea of a right to use drugs derives from the idea that
individuals own their own bodies. That is, a person has the right to exercise control over his own
body—including the right to decide how it should be used, and to exclude others from using it—in
a manner similar to the way one may exercise control over one's (other) property. This statement is
somewhat vague; nevertheless, we can see the general idea embodied in common sense morality. Indeed, it
seems that if there is anything one would have rights to, it would be one's own body.

10
"Imprisoning Nonviolent Drug Users Is Unjust." America's Prisons. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010.
Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 7 Nov. 2010.
4
Pope High School Stock AC
Clay Stewart
3) The War on Drugs Has Failed Empirically

Boaz, Executive Vice President of, and Lynch, Director of, the Cato Insitute, One 200611:

Despite the soaring expenditures on anti-drug efforts, about half the students in the United States
in 1995 tried an illegal drug before they graduated from high school. Every year from 1975 to
1995, at least 82 percent of high school seniors said they found marijuana "fairly easy" or "very
easy" to obtain. During that same period, according to federal statistics of dubious reliability, teenage
marijuana use fell dramatically and then rose significantly, suggesting that cultural factors have more
effect than the "war on drugs."

4) The War on Drugs Creates High Levels of Crime

Boaz and Lynch Two, 200612:

Second, drug prohibition creates high levels of crime. Addicts commit crimes to pay for a habit that
would be easily affordable if it were legal. Police sources have estimated that as much as half the property
crime in some major cities is committed by drug users. More dramatic, because drugs are illegal,
participants in the drug trade cannot go to court to settle disputes, whether between buyer and seller or
between rival sellers. When black-market contracts are breached, the result is often some form of
violent sanction, which usually leads to retaliation and then open warfare in the streets. Our capital
city, Washington, D.C., has become known as the "murder capital" even though it is the most heavily policed city in the
United States. Make no mistake about it, the annual carnage that accounts for America's still shockingly
high murder rates has little to do with the mind-altering effects of a marijuana cigarette or a crack pipe. It is instead
one of the grim and bitter consequences of an ideological crusade whose proponents will not yet
admit defeat.

5) Drug Prohibition Funds Crime, Corruption, and Terrorism

Boaz and Lynch Three, 200613:

drug prohibition channels more than $40 billion a year into the criminal underworld
Fifth,
occupied by an assortment of criminals, corrupt politicians, and, yes, terrorists. Alcohol prohibition
drove reputable companies into other industries or out of business altogether, which paved the
way for mobsters to make millions in the black market. If drugs were legal, organized crime
would stand to lose billions of dollars, and drugs would be sold by legitimate businesses in an open
marketplace.

11
David Boaz and Timothy Lynch. "Federal Drug Prohibition Should Be Repealed." Legalizing Drugs. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
12
David Boaz and Timothy Lynch. "Federal Drug Prohibition Should Be Repealed." Legalizing Drugs. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
13
David Boaz and Timothy Lynch. "Federal Drug Prohibition Should Be Repealed." Legalizing Drugs. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
5
Pope High School Stock AC
Clay Stewart
6) The War on Drugs Harms Our National Security

Boaz and Lynch Four 200614:

since the [terrorist attacks] of September 11, 2001, U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly
Third,
warned us of further terrorist attacks. Given that danger, it is a gross misallocation of law
enforcement resources to have federal police agents surveilling [medical] marijuana clubs in
California when they could be helping to discover sleeper cells of terrorists on U.S. territory. The
Drug Enforcement [Administration] has 9,000 agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff.
Their skills would be much better used if those people were redeployed to full-time
counterterrorism investigations.

Thus, because drug use and abuse is permissible, and we have an obligation to legalize drugs, I affirm
the resolution.

14
David Boaz and Timothy Lynch. "Federal Drug Prohibition Should Be Repealed." Legalizing Drugs. Ed. Stuart A. Kallen.
San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
6