Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Be Permitted?

Allowing pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise to consumers should be reconsidered. Direct advertising can create undue pressure on medical professionals, compelling them to prescribe medications that may not be the most suitable choice for their patients. This situation raises concerns about the potential impact on patient care and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.

1. Response to asthma attacks - With nicotine already legalized this problem is already present. 2. Response to distracting drivers - These drugs such as marijuana, heroine, or cocaine would be treated like alcohol when it comes to driving. Anyone caught under intoxication or high would be charged with DUI. 3. The drugs are being used illegally already, and in different parts of the world and therefore are already causing this problems.

The drug should not be legalized because if it is, then other drugs like herion and cocaine might be made legal as well. While it is used to treat diseases like cancer and other medical problems, which I have no problems with, if it was legalized, then dealers would be free to sell it on the streets to anyone they wanted. Crime would go up because as more of it sells, gangs would want to enlarge their territories, thus putting people who live in the areas in the middle of a possible gang war, and cause innocent people to be seriously hurt or killed. Drugs like marijuana are harmful to young children as it messes with their brain, which is still in important developing processes, if legalized then it increases the danger marijuana poses to them. Any drug has a risk of overdose no matter what it is, cocaine and herion are placed in the same category as marijuana, and you can over dose on the two, every drug has the possibility of over dosing.

No and here is an extremely long reason long. Contention 1: Unreported Euthanasia and Euthanasia without consent. I shall begin by giving you the horrible statistics of Euthanasia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Approximately 900 euthanasia's a year are done without the consent of the one being euthanized and 50% of euthanasizations are done unreported. In 2005, it was reported that 1.7% of the nation's deaths were caused by Euthanasia, a total of 2,410 people. 1 out of every 5 people who receive euthanasia are done without consent. ( Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L. The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy.2009;90:181–7. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003.) A study in Belgium reported that 32% were without consent. . Contention 2: The Slippery Slope Argument Keown gives in his slippery slope argument of 2002, that once one form of euthanasia is accepted that other forms, like involuntary euthanasia, to become legal. For my number one example I present the Dutch. In 1987, the Royal Dutch Medical Association had written into law, “If there is no request from the patient, then proceeding with the termination of his life is [juristically] a matter of murder or killing, and not of euthanasia.” However, in 2001 they supported a new law that completely supported a law that would legalize non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. (Medical end-of-life practices under the euthanasia law in Belgium. Bilsen J, Cohen J, Chambaere K, Pousset G, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Mortier F, Deliens L N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10; 361(11):1119-21.) There 2001 law also permitted children from age 12-16 to be euthanized with parental concent! Though the nation does not consider the child at liberty to make the call. (The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, De Keyser E, Deliens L Health Policy. 2009 May; 90(2-3):181-7) The euthanasia’s in Belgium have doubled since 1998. The involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia rates have slightly increased from 1.5% in 2001 to 1.8% in 2007. In Flanders the euthanasia numbers have increased from 0.3% in 2001 to 1.9% in 2007. In the graph bellow we can see that the number of euthanasia’s have doubled since 2007 as well. The definition of Euthanasia has actually changed over the years from it being killing in 1950 to a quick and easy death in 1981. In the bellow quote we can see that our perspective has changed to the point that we almost do not even associate death with euthanasia in the definition. ""Have we really forgotten that euthanasia is killing?" From a pre-1950 dictionary: "Mode or act of inducing death painlessly or as a relief from pain." From Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary (1968): "1. An easy death or means of inducing one. 2. The act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable conditions or diseases." From Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (1981): "1. Dying easily, quietly and painlessly. 2. The act of willfully ending life in individuals with an incurable disease" (http://www.all.org...) You are also given the healing doctor a killing roll. This can have a huge effect on doctors as it was proved that it has an effect on doctors who are supposed to heal their patients and are now asked to kill. This also gives off a fear of the doctor as in Holland, the elderly are scared of the doctor, because they are scared that the doctor will euthanize them. (http://www.all.org...)

When you say me saying marijuana Is a drug is not neccesarily permissible is incorrect. Marijuana is a drug regardless of its effects. Whether it helps or not it is still a drug. It is a schedule one substance that shows its value and where it stands. Some pills used for pain such as Tylenol even though it is not extreme will take away your pain, and not alter your brain. It won't alter your senses or your perception. Marijuana does. The effects are similar not the same, and the effects at completely diffrent. Banning and something being illegal is pretty much the same thing? The argument I made that you spoke on and tried to break down didn't make since. However it is a good thing cocaine is illegal as well as other drugs because it is helping the community and the people whom don't know any better. Sure you can say it's a freedom of choice. If someone didnt know any Better or we young, they would be not prone to try it, and even more at that if it was legalised. Cocaine shouldnt be used, it's not the same as Ritalin or else that would be illegal as well. Cocaine makes you ugly :/. When you say if someone wants to take it for a small reason makes it acceptable, then you are also for recreational use. Because if someone went into a dispensary to get cannabis with a scratch, and got some. That's not medical use. A traditional mindset means that if you are destroying your body to have fun and enjoy at an expense that you are ruining your body is not very smart. Right have fun and get hurt. There are other ways to have fun. But hey their lives and outlooks. I'm sure however grandparents in the older generations were not going out and getting wasted and intoxicated. In the end it is free choice of the states. If people want It that bad, then it will be legalized. The world did people a favor out of education and knowing right from wrong. Just like a mother not giving her obese child a candy bar. free choice right :) However once it becomes legal professionals will regret the decision after seeing the consequences. Maybe the government is doing themsleves a favor to get nor money. Yes it has a big impact on the economy but it is unnecesary. I believe smart people will refrain. Don't indulge in worldly pleasures and you will see the garden -to religious people is this quote. An excessive user does eventually become slow. And this I noticable. Chemical dependency one. It's harder for them to learn things that would be easier to other people.

Foreword Since Con admitted his mistake in putting up the R1 case, it's up to voters on the conduct point.. Framework Con retorts that we have to look to morality in this debate because it centers on values, but this isn't the case at all. When evaluating political philosophy, it is possible for one to be influenced by ethical theory; however, this is merely descriptive ethics, not normative ethics. That discussion may be influenced by moral principles does not imply that proving a moral imperative is necessary for victory. As I noted, it's perfectly fine for Con and I to make moral arguments, but the resolution is not intended to be framed as a moral imperative for the state. Con attempts to argue that even my "you should go to the doctor" statement is a moral claim, but it's one which makes use of a colloquial notion of "should", which implies "it would be beneficial for you to go to the doctor", rather than "you're morally obligated to see a physician". Moreover, I would like to point out that Con is making a slippery slope argument. He claims that we shouldn't have "unlimited freedom", because it would force us to accept freedom to murder, rape, and so on. First of all, I never advocated "unlimited freedom", so his objection is irrelevant. Second of all, we're talking specifically about the freedom to use drugs, not to initiate violence against other individuals. This distinction between limitations on self-harm and limitations on harming others is actually central to my case. Arguments Argumentation Ethics and Self-Ownership There are many theories of rights encompassed in ought-ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology; however, these theories all fall victim to problems of normative contingency and crushing subjectivity. Argumentation ethics explains rights as presuppositions resulting from engaging in the act of argument, rather than engaging in violence. Hans Hoppe argues [http://mises.org... (starting around 339-340)] that we must necessarily allocate scarce resources--our bodies. By the very act of making an argument, I am exercising self-ownership. By arguing, my opponent and I both acknowledge each others' right to control exclusively our own bodies. In turn, we see that the nonaggression principle is also presupposed. Thus, communication with others necessarily assumes self-ownership and nonaggression. Should we attempt to engage in force, we must abandon argumentation, as we are, by using force, necessarily discarding that which is required to engage in argumentation. Conversely, we cannot therefore argue against that which is required for argument. My opponent cannot attempt to convince me to become a slave without running into a contradiction, as he must suppose free and autonomous agency to engage me (an idea originally pioneered by Habermas [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. Discourse ethics is distinguished from traditional "ought-morality", as it does not tell us what we ought to do--rather, it frames human action in a way which explains to us what it is logically impossible to do. Consequently, Con cannot make arguments which contradict concepts like nonaggression and self-ownership without contradicting himself by arguing to undermine that which is fundamentally necessary for communicative rationality. On Meth and Self-Harm I accept the harms, but contend they have no impact. Con seems to be presupposing that banning, regulating, or otherwise penalizing self-harm is justified. Whereas my discussion of presuppositions (such as self-ownership and nonaggression) is justified on the basis that we're arguing (the act of argument implicitly validating those presuppositions), Con is merely fiating presuppositions which have yet to be justified. Legal action against any substance is unjustified, regardless of self-harm concerns. It's true that the government could simply cease with argument and initiate violence through taxes, bans, and regulation; however, at the point that violence is used in lieu of discourse, we can no longer argue about justification. In other words, there is no way for Con to warrant this violence, as he cannot logically justify action to undermine that which he must presuppose to argue his justification. On Meth and Society 1. Con cites how cheap, easy, and addictive meth is on the black market, and uses that as a justification for a ban. Though saying "X is really addictive, therefore we should ban it" is, despite the emotional appear, a glaring non sequitur, the part about meth being cheap and easy provokes a bit of economic analysis. Earlier, Con opposed the War on Drugs in terms of marijuana, but argued that we shouldn't let that trick us into letting all drugs go free. Apart from the fact that the "improvements" in meth use (e.g. higher prices and lower use) were basically only temporary as the US heaped on a few billion dollars more (not even counting that violent crime rates didn't shrink) [http://people.ucsc.edu...], Con may still still argue that we have to maintain the WOD for symbolic reasons, as a show of our tough attitude on a social pollutant. Unfortunately, that doesn't hold up to the economics. The WOD has the effect that sugar tariffs had on sugar and HFCS (sugar, while not being healthy, is at least better than the zero-nutrition syrup, much like how some drugs, while not being good for you, are obviously much better than meth). When putting tariffs on sugar, prices spiked, and HFCS became the cheapest, easiest thing to mass-produce [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Similarly, the WOD succeeded in driving up the prices and risks of many drugs. Production costs increased, finding ways to distribute became more difficult, and so on. For people just looking for a high, meth offered significantly lower costs, both in terms of money and in terms of risk (not to mention the "forbidden fruit" or "potency" effect highlighting the backlash of prohibitive policies) [http://mises.org...]. On the supply side, savvy dealers can make massive profits because of conditions creating increased demand for meth, sometimes playing with returns of up and around 500% [http://nymag.com...] [http://www5.semo.edu...]. Obviously it varies, but it's often tremendous. 2. His second argument about crime also doesn't offer a compelling reason to ban meth. First, if you're going to punish an individual for a crime involving harm of others, then the drug is irrelevant vis-a-vis crime. Second, the principle here is basically that we can ban things to prevent crime; however, there's no reason to believe this is the case, as A) he's already admitted that he's okay with marijuana, for which arguments can be made about committing a crime while high, and B) he would have to commit himself to banning things like rage and sadness, since those emotions can also severely compromise one's judgment to the point of committing a criminal act. Third, look to the contradictions I listed earlier regarding argumentation ethics--he can't argue a ban without having to abandon the very things allowing him to argue his justification (which is ironic, since he criticized meth as detrimental to autonomy). Fourth, his study also says that meth use isn't significantly predictive about violent crime recidivism, which means that it could just be going back to jail for drugs (which means that his study doesn't justify meth bans). Fifth, you can get the advantages of restorative justice/rehab through private intermediaries, like contracts with insurance companies and employers to refrain from drug use, and mandatory rehab and probation (like higher premiums or routine drug tests) as a stipulation for breaking the terms, which means we don't need coercion. Good luck to Con in R2.

Thank you Con for building your case. I will now summarize cons main points that he presented and offer rebuttals for each. (1) The state of Oregon along with other states has or may use doctors and physicians as a tool to end a patients life so that they will not have to pay for medication. He believes they will do this by taking advantage of their mental state. Direct quote by con"To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want"(2) People who want to commit suicide most of the time are suffering from a mental disorder(3) Morality. He believe it is immoral to take a persons life. Direct quote from Con"Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have"(1)In cons opening points he uses three stories to illustrate how assisted suicide could be taken advantage of. He states that people with cancer and other types of terminal illness are undergoing depression from which they can be treated, and he wishes that they are treated for depression so that they would not wish to die. I will not argue the fact that most people suffering from types of terminal illness are undergoing depression. In fact I will say that there is a high probability they are which Con demonstrated within his sources. Con however completely missed the main issue behind assisted suicide. That is the reason why they are depressed. People suffering from terminal illness are often undergoing intense of amounts of pain. As he pointed out with cancer. You can have cancer of the lungs, breasts, or in most parts of your party. There is heart disease and other types of illnesses that lead to deterioration of the body. It is very easy to see why these people are depressed, and that is because of the amount of pain they are in. While Con is correct when he says they can be treated for depression, they can not be treated for some of the illnesses that plague them. That is why most of them are suffering from "Terminal Illness". Terminal illness is defined as "A medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe an active and malignant disease that cannot be cured". Most of these people have disease that are incurable and are forced to suffer through the pain. Some people can be in such intense pain that they pass out, especially with bone deterioration or cancer of the lungs in their final days. When they are in that type of suffering it is a completely viable option to give them the choice to end their suffering. He then states that doctors can be controlled in order to murder people so they will not have to pay for medical costs. This could possibly happen, but will not happen with controlled regulation. In fact it will decrease it from happening. As con stated there have already been cases in which this occurred. From the intense overview this will receive when it is regulated, it will be almost impossible to commit this. If a doctor even tried to do this and was caught, he would be tried for premeditated murder. At that point he will risk life in prison, death, revocation of his license, and a stain on his character as a person. Just out of the sheer consequences that come from this, a deterrent is already in place without regulations. Regulations will just help build the deterrent even more. (2)The context in which con is making this point is irrelevant to the debate but I will combat it anyway. As I have already tackled previously patients who are suffering from terminal illness are in that state because of pain and other reasons. Con was making this point to show that "most people" who commit suicide are undergoing depression. Where as this will not fall under the guide lines of how this law will be passed it is irrelevant. It is directly relevant to people who are in trauma or are suffering from severe illness. Where as it may extend to more people in a later date. As i have also stated, suicide itself is not a criminal act. So to bring up the point that most people who are not ill and that still see fit to commit suicide are depressed, is irrelevant to this topic. (3)Con questions the morality behind this. Seeing as how this is completely subjective I will argue as so. Con thinks that extended someone the curiosity of living longer is the moral act. He ignores the fact that it is there wish not to suffer because of the vast amounts of pain they are in. Where as morality is dependent upon different a persons viewpoint, I propose that it should be that person right, or the family right to say whether or not it is a moral act to end their suffering.In closing I have previously shown in my R2 argument and continued to show throughout this rounds argument why assisted suicide should be legalized. Suicide is already permitted and not considered a crime, so law is not being broken. It should also be a persons or their families right to determine if it is moral to end their suffering. I have also shown how this is already happening with the option of pulling the plug in some cases. Where as this is a passive cases of assisted suicide and they are not actually ending the persons life, it is still with the intention of kill them to help them ease their pain. The most important point is that everyone should have their right to their own body and be able to choose death or life. If they do not wish to be in pain, we have no right to put them through needless suffering if they so desire. I believe and have shown why this is moral, and helping ease a persons suffering. This is already starting to be pushed and is already in legal in some states, I ask that you take the steps to make it happen in the rest. Thank youhttp://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.usccb.org...

First I'll go over the arguments he made, then go over the ones he didn't respond to. Con: Pro has to prove legalization promotes, with a corollary link I answered this argument in round 2 and he drops the response. Please extend my "D" key argument, which shows how the link does not have to be direct. This was not responded to, so count it as true. Therefore, I do uphold the burden to show that legalization promotes the object. Con: Goods can be promoted despite illegality I answered all four of his examples of this, and he drops my responses to three of them. He only responded to the interracial marriage example, saying that the purpose is only to show that there isn't a link between its legalization and its promotion. However I showed how this example does not prove his point because tracking an illegal activity like that is difficult, so he cant draw any conclusions from this. Secondly, he still hasn't given a source for this statistic. Con: The point of his debate is to show publicity, not increases in use When he first argued about the legalization of interracial marriage, he argued that its rate of occurrence didn't increase. So he has been arguing about occurrence increases; don't let him change his advocacy in the very last round. Con: Legalizing abortion didn't promote it With abortion legal you can see it publicized in ads, unlike before (1). He agrees that advertisements promote the action, so I prove that legalization has promoted it. Con: Correlation =/= causation, need link I gave the link showing how legalization leads to publicity. Business men find the newly legal product as a business opportunity, market it, and advertise/promote it. Its surprisingly simple. Now lets go over what wasn't responded to. Obviously, my "D" key argument is, well, key. Its lack of response to means that I don't have to prove that legalization directly leads to promotion. If I prove that legalization leads to advertisement which leads to promotion, I win the round. He gave examples of promotion still happening in the California, High Times Magazine, and Prostitution examples. After responding to all of these, he drops all of them. Perhaps most important are my arguments made in the Conclusion section of my last round. In it, I gave two reasons showing why I win automatically. Neither of them were responded to. So at the point where my arguments about why I win were dropped, I don't see any incentive to vote con. I'll repeat those conceded arguments to remind us of why I urge a pro vote. 1. I argue that advertisements cause promotion, and he directly agreed to this in the second round. 2. Advertisements are only possible because of legalization. Therefore, legalization is a direct catalyst to promotion. Please count these conceded arguments as true. For all of these reasons, I urge a con vote. Thanks to my opponent for the good debate, and finishing. 1. http://tinypic.com...

I hope this can be an enjoyable experience for the both of us. Arguments:1. Less people die. My opponent correctly suggests that, in recent years, children and infants have died less frequently from disease. This is due to great advances in medicine. However, those great advances in medicine have also brought other, much less desirable, effects. Thalidomide: Thalidomide was first sold in Germany as an over the country drug in 1957. It was used in the hopes that it would prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, which it did. Unfortunately, however, it had the side effect of deforming the limbs of unborn children whose Mothers had taken the drug. Of the 10,000 children born with limbs that were malformed because of the drug, only 5,000 survived. Thalidomide was a case of drug companies destroying the lives of 10,000 people without malicious intent. It was also, as my opponent will doubtlessly point out, over 50 years ago. Whilst this is true, there are much more recent, yet less infamous, issues with the advances of medicine which have undoubtedly made lives worse. One example of this is in a BBC news report from 2006:[1] 'Six men remain in intensive care after being taken ill during a clinical drugs trial in north-west London. The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital when they suffered a reaction. Relatives are with the patients, who suffered multiple organ failure. Two men are said to be critically ill. 'This shows that the advancement of medicine has not necessarily made lives better, in fact, it could be said that, although more people now survive diseases, their quality of life is lower. An example of this would be the euthanasia debate. In the past, your doctor would help you survive disease until the point where you were in insufferable pain which could not be alleviated. At this point, your doctor could, and often would, make the decision to ease your passing with an overdose of drugs (normally morphine) with your consent. [2] 'Throughout classical antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested. 'This was made illegal in the UK in 1961, meaning that those suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal disease may not make the decision to end their life with help if they're unable to do it alone. This is not just in the UK, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country in the world. [3] 'As of 2014, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. 'Despite even this, the increase in world population is not inherently a good thing in itself. It has led to oppressive but necessary policies such as the Chinese one child policy, which has seen the murder of many young girls in the hopes that the parents will have a son. Thus, my argument is that whilst life expectancy has gotten longer, quality of life has not.2. Better technology for everybodyMy opponent again correctly suggests that technology has not only improved over the years, but has also become more available to the average peasant (citizen). However, this is not necessarily a good thing. My opponent asserts: 'Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations. 'This is all very well and good, however, the increase in 'better transport' has massively increased the consumption of oil and other natural resources all around the world. Here we see the increase in diesel consumption per year in just the USA. This data only goes up to the year 1998, however, I can tell you that the fuel consumption in the year 2013 in just the USA [4]'about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline. 'This tremendous increase in the use of natural resources has resulted in a tremendous increase in greenhouse gases emmitted into the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. As you can see here, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially from 1960-2010. This is resulting in a 'warming' on a global scale. An effect that is commonly known as 'global warming. 'This has resulted in the extinction of countless species and will result in the extinction of countless more. [5]'Polar bears have started drowning as they have had to swim longer distances between ice flows, and the U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that if the Arctic ice cape continues melting at its current rate, “two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century. ”7 Of course, it is not just the polar bear that is affected—one study predicts that a quarter of land animals and plants could become extinct because of global warming over the next 45 years.8'[6]'Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said. 'My opponent implies that communication has become easier in the past few hundred years with the invention of increasingly better, more convenient and inexpensive telephones, right up to the mobile phone. I would agree with him, but that does not mean that the quality of communication has gone up. In fact, I would argue that the quality of communication has definitely gone down. I want to transport my reader back to a time that is no longer in living memory. A time where telephones did not exist and the easiest form of long-range communication was a letter. I want to transport my reader back to the 1830's, to a young girl called Victoria, who would later be known as Queen Victoria. She wished to write her sister, whom had gone to live with the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a letter. It had been many years since she had been allowed to see her sister, and after writing the letter she waited excitedly for a reply. Can you imagine her dismay when, a few days later, she opened an envelope addressed to her from her sister to see nothing but the letter 'K' written upon an almost blank piece of paper? This, of course, never happened. The cost of sending a letter, whilst not expensive, was costly enough to ensure detailed communication with ones friends and loved ones which invoked a feeling of closeness that is not as often seen in the communications of today. This is primarily because now, with the invention of social media and texting, it is so incredibly easy to lose the sense of connection that communication held in the time of letters. Lengthy and structured replies are no longer seen as important, formality is an art that is often no longer understood or seen to be necessary. The phenomenon of the 'K' response is often wrote about, it is well recognised for its rude abruptness, yet many people still continue to use it because, with the invention of easier communications, there is little practical reason not to. Thus, I argue that whilst the quantity of communication has increased, the quality of communication has gone down. As has, therefore, the quality of friendships and relationships. More arguments next round. Sources: [1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk...;[2]http://euthanasia.procon.org...;[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.eia.gov...;[5]http://www.greeniacs.com...;[6]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;

Let's take a looksy at your sauce. As it puts things, production of the drugs in question is being "ramped up" by the private companies which create it. Hmm, why do companies ramp production up? I dunno, probably because more people are paying for it. Now, if these companies make more money, you send a market signal that treating diseases like these will lead to profits. This means they create more of the drugs in question, which means, due to economies of scale, those drugs get cheaper soon-- meaning more people will be able to afford them. Whereas, if you simply hand out the drug regardless of pay, you make it so that production is less likely to occur. That means fewer of those who need it get treated. Maybe the posh here are being morons, or maybe they produce enough to justify the additional caution. Either way, their actions benefit the poor sufferers of the disease by creating a market for the drug, a market without which the poor would have no one to mooch the drug from. Do you want some of the poor to be treated, or none of them except in the immediate moment, since you're so concerned with them? :)

"We care about the environment and other animals species because they either directly or indirectly benefit us." -So if you believe this to be the case, then any points about the "natural rights" or "equality" of animals can be set aside. Whether animal testing is ethical or not is no longer a component of this debate from this viewpoint. "According to David Graham, associate director of the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety, an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans alone had heart attacks or strokes as a result of taking Vioxx, as many as 55,000 of them fatal." According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) over 80 million people were prescribed rofecoxib (trade name Vioxx). When you consider that the "disastrous effects" of the drug were only present in less that one-fifth of a percent of patients receiving the drug, you have to wonder whether any study, animal or human, could have predicted its effects. "Drugs originate not from such [animal-based] tests but from clinical observation, serendipity and rational drug design." -I believe you may have missed the point I was trying to make (lost among the rambling sentences of my last argument, I'll admit). The main purpose of animal toxicology testing (the kind of testing you are referring to when you mention how animal testing doesn't prevent drug disasters such as the thalidomide tragedy) is NOT to ensure the safety of a drug, but to try to uncover possible effects of a drug without administering it to humans. For example, if a drug is shown to cause brain damage in mice, then researchers would try to figure out exactly how the drug caused this damage. If it is determined that the drug would have the same effect on humans, then it would not be given to the public, however, if the damage is such that it would only appear in mice, or if the mice suffered no ill effects from the drug, then further testing would be conducted. Yes, it is true that the testing process we currently use is fallible, but so is any sort of testing, animal or human. And no testing is even more open to disasters such as the ones you describe. Scientists admit that animal testing is not the be-all and end-all method of determining whether a substance is toxic or not, it is merely a "preliminary" sort of screening for any drug. All the examples you state for drugs that produce different effects in animals are the exceptions. Animal testing with a variety of species and conditions will be quite accurate, just as any sort of human study will be more accurate with a large, representative sample. I also feel that in our debate we have neglected other kinds of animal-based research, such as in the relatively new fields of genetics and bio-engineering, focusing mainly on toxicology testing. In conclusion, animal testing is beneficial because it provides a safe way to test a drug, at least as a sort of preliminary test, without the excess cost and ethical concerns of human testing. Some research requires animal subjects, such as in determining how a gene will affect life-span or future generations, or for inter-species comparative studies. There are countless examples of medical and scientific breakthroughs that would never have occurred without animal testing practices. However, like anything, animal research is still a work in progress. Alternatives such as microdose testing may one day decrease our reliance on animal testing, but as of right now they are either too expensive or not completely developed to become substitutes, and I doubt that they will ever become reliable enough to do away with animal testing completely. Like I mentioned before, we can never be completely sure, and that is why we do testing like this: to compensate for any knowledge we don't know we lack.


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs be Permitted?

Fostering a culture of medication dependency
Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs perpetuates a 'pill for every problem' mindset. The pharmaceutical industry aims to generate new markets for its medications by convincing patients that a pill can address any issue they face. This trend leads to increased hypochondria and the misinterpretation of normal conditions as medical ailments. For example, in October 2001, GSK ran ads for Paxil in the New York Times, suggesting the drug could alleviate chronic anxiety. This occurred shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when external events, not a medical condition, were more likely the cause of New Yorkers' stress. A 1999 FDA study found that less than one in four new drugs offers any therapeutic benefit. Today, the medical community widely acknowledges that lifestyle changes often provide the best defense against disease. Instead of seeking quick fixes like weight-loss or diabetes pills, childhood obesity can be better managed through physical activity and healthy eating. Pill reliance might seem easier, but in reality, it can harm society's long-term health. By permitting the advertising of prescription drugs, we encourage more people to believe they are sick and require medication, rather than addressing the root causes of their conditions, such as 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

Cigarrets should not be illiegal, even thou I dont smoke and think that it is a terrible habit, the cigarrets companies KNOW this and therefor made a public announment in every package that says that IT IS A HEALTH RISK that enduces cancer. So, the comapnies are giving the comsumers a choice with knowlegde. It is a fair game!

I will now attack my opponent's proposal: My Opponent: "1) Remove regulations that grant monopoly benefits on local insurance companies. One such regulation is the one that my opponent advocates, though there are others. One other such regulation is the requirement of the ownership of this kind of insurance, which artificially increases demand and the price of health insurance. Many regulations exist that are considered to be less significant, but together have a monopolistic effect, reducing competition, and harming the consumer." I have no problem with this. Since I have no problem with it, I will not debate it. I would have no problem if it found its way into my healthcare proposal. My Opponent: "2) End Occupational Licensure Allowing any individual to perform any medical procedure as long as (if practical) there is informed consent and no fraud will directly bring down the costs of medical care by decreasing the costs of medical labor by allowing the supply of physicians to increase. Given a system of liability, there is really no reason to have any occupational licensure." Are you mad? Let those with non-medical degrees practice medicine? I have a problem with this on three accounts: a) The goal of any healthcare reform legislation should be to help the healthiness of the populous. This would hamper that. We would have unhealthier citizens, hence force, its a bad idea. b) My opponent says the patient would have to consent. However, there is one instance in which this doesn't work. That instance is: CHILDBIRTH. Even if the mother may consent, the child would have no chance to disapprove. Every child has a right to be delivered by a competent medical professional. No ifs, and, or ors, about it! c) This would raise the cost on the taxpayer. If I go to an unlicensed medical "professional" to have a laser eye surgery and I turn out blind, what can I do? I can go to court, but since I gave my consent its very unlikely I'd win a settlement. What am I to do now? Answer: turn to the government. I would probably apply for Social Security and Disability, costing the taxpayers. What if the same happens to millions (which is likely under my opponent's idea), the taxpayer will be expected to pay billions to take care of them. My Opponent: "Restricting the supply of medicine by hampering its availability is another cause for artificially high market prices, this time directly in the product. The FDA's oversight into the medical field has caused a long approval process that drastically increases the costs of research and development, increasing the price of newer, cheaper, and more effective medicines. As long as there is a liability system, there is really no reason to have an approval system." The FDA may need a few spending cuts here and there, but this takes it too far. The approval system should be kept the same. I'd much rather wait ten years for a medicine than take a bad drug. Wouldn't you too? In Conclusion: My opponent's plan would harm the health of the population and cost more people to apply for government assistance. It will never work and shouldn't be given a shot. I yield back to my opponent.

1. On this first point you say that only 30000 have died because of drugs. First off thats in one year and for a certain drug overdose or something in that line. What my point is including is all deaths relating to drugs including from overdosing to things like driving when under the influence of drugs. At to date millions have died because of the drugs. 2. The point of prisons is to prove that if you do something illegal then you will be punished. To group every other argument you made we shouldn't just make drugs legal because we cant stop them right now. If anything we should tighten our standards against anti drug not just make them legal. Its like making murder legal just because we cant stop it from happening. 3. This point you really never touched except saying it contradicts my next point s which ill get to. But whats the point of banning drugs is to keep people at full health at all times. 4. The point to this point not contradicting point 3 is that if we allow drugs to be legal our whole government will collapse economy and society are examples of that. Once that happens we will be sitting ducks for imperialistic countries that are angered by the US to strike us down. The other example I used was during NAM when soliders were given drugs it hurt them and their families when they returned. Also its not dehumanizing to place drug dealers and druggies with murderers and rapists. It was the choice they made and they should deal with the consequences. Especially if they deal drugs, for the reasons in point 1. 5. This basically ties in with point 4 so just argue it there. Keeping drugs criminalize is the only way to keep our society the great society it is. Do not decriminalize drugs if anything vote for neg to strengthen anti drug programs and strengthening against them. DONT CAVE IN, STAY STRONG Vote Neg

War on DrugsThe definition of guilty given by Google is, “Not guilty of a crime or offense”. The only time you are ever formally guilty of a crime is when you are officiated so by a court of law. Until that moment, you are considered a “suspect.” Even if the cops walk in to your house and video tape you doing the crime, you are still considered a suspect until proven guilty by a court. You are not “guilty” yet merely a suspect, still innocent.Pro explains how big pharma is relative to the debate, big pharma an example to illustrate Pro’s point of ‘you can’t have a war on a concept because it’s too broad’. Since I did not know what ‘Big Pharma’ was, I researched it. And what I found did not correlate with what Pro proposed. Pro has the idea that ‘Big Pharma’ gives out drugs to people and the government allows it. Big Pharma is the theory that, ‘the medical establishment in general, and pharmaceutical companies in particular, operate for sinister purposes and against the public good.’https://en.wikipedia.org...These sinister purposes include fake vaccines that don’t work (so pharmaceuticals can make billions of dollars), suppressing real data about vaccines…basically that the pharmaceutical industry is completely corrupt. I found nothing of a ‘Big Pharma’ company selling heroin to people and the government giving permission. I feel that Pro has been misinformed, if not I would ask that he please illustrates what he means with some links and sources.(Just so we are clear, when we are talking about a ‘War on Drugs’ we mean drugs as in heroin, marijuana, etc. not Tylenol and Aspirin.)The focus in the ‘War on Drugs’ is the removal of harmful drugs from our society. Pro needs to provide evidence on how we are trying to remove people, or attack people, or harm people in the War on Drugs instead of removing, attacking, and harming drugs. Thus far he has failed to do so.Pro’s third paragraph is just a repetition of the second which I already touched on.“For example certain drugs are allowed to be sold to certain people, yet not to others. Someone can be prescribed Xanax, while another person cant because they are not prescribed it. A war on drugs would mean no one could use Xanax. This is why it is an attack on people, not the drug. Also it is why we cant have a war on a word. It is too broad.”The War on Drugs entails drugs that are free to use, not drugs for medical purposes. If this is not the case Pro should have defined it in R1. But the common known definition entails free-to-use drugs (e.g. marijuana, cocaine, heroin, tobacco, etc.) This does not include medically prescribed medicine. If this was not the case in Pro’s mind, he should have said so in the prior rounds. Since this is my last response, I cannot respond to the new definition if he gives it.And about words being too broad, I believe poverty is not broad. As long as there is one word that is not too broad, and we can have a war on, then I win. Poverty entails anyone who is poor, there is a set income that labels you as in poverty. The objective in this war would be to eliminate poverty.War on TerrorismI don't think anyone can debate that when a government uses a drone strike on a town, it scares the people of that town. To say that it does not scare people would be irrational.Could you still have a war without any violence? (in our sense of war)Yes.Would educating people on the dangers of terrorism, persuading others of giving up their terrorist views, and stopping terrorism in any method possible without killing or scaring anyone possible?Yes.Just because we haven’t done so yet, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Remember, all I have to do in this debate to win is show that it is possible that we can. This debate is not whether we have declared war on a word yet, it is whether we can in the future.What Pro brings up is irrelevant.War on PovertyThe objective of this war is to help people, I don’t understand how this attacking them. The enemy is one of two things; poverty or people. My opponent can admit that the enemy of this war is not people, so it must be poverty.Pro then makes a good point in saying that without people there is not concept. Just because we declare war on a product does not mean we are declaring war on its maker as well. Saying that you hate a person does not automatically entail that you must hate their mother as well. You can declare war on a concept, without people.In Pro’s last paragraph, he changes the definition of war as to the traditional sense, as in physical combat. I assumed that we were referring to war as an effort with a goal, not a traditional war with guns. I thought we were smarter than this.Conclusion:This has been a very interesting and educating debate and I am sad to see it end. I would like to wish my opponent the best of luck in the rest of his debating career and thoroughly hope that he will stay on DDO so I can keep in touch with him. I respect my opponent, for he is a very intelligent debater and it has been fun conversing with him. With that I end my case, thank you!

My opponent has failed to define terms and present me with arguments to refute, so I will bring up the first points in this match. This is a topic based largely on common sense. Assertion 1: All drugs are bad. Reasoning: Isn't this obvious? Clearly, my opponent has not reaserched well enough to debate this on solid ground. Marijuana is dangerous. So is the other drugs. An overdose of Marijuana can kill you, as shown by an incdent when a mother baked marijuana into cookies that a five year old girl ate. She ended up eating over a pound. Addiction to marijuana over a long time an lead to lung or throat cancer. Evidence: SF gate, Growing up a Teen in America Assertion 2: The drug was sold legally online. Reasoning: The kids had access to it. It was online, and it wasn't even illegel. You have not brought up the fact that we should just ban meow altogether. Then this incident wouldn't have happened. Evidence: Daily Mail Assertion 3: Changing the law will not have much effect. Reasoning: Many teenagers still take drugs. They still do it, even though the law forbids them to. How do we know that meow usage will not be continued? Allowing marijuana is simply unhealthy for them. It makes them addicted, crazed, and makes them emotionally unstable. Evidence: The Daily Life magazine To top it off, all drugs are bad. Allowing any type of drug won't help the situation. Although drugs are outlawed, many still use them, and I wait for my opponent's rebuttal.

===Answering my opponent's first objection=== "Once your [sic] hooked, you are probably going to be hooked for a while. " The human body is "hooked" on many other substances that aren't drugs, like food and water, except to a much larger degree. To advocate for mind-altering drugs to be illegal on this premise should include an advocation for food and water to be illegal as well. ===The Flaw in My Opponent's Crime Definition Premise=== My opponent's case relies solely on the premise that something making one more likely to commit crimes should be illegal. Given this, we can derive that sororities should also be illegal. This is because their existence increases the chance of sexual assault[1]. Parties and celebrations should also be illegal because they also increase the chances of rape[1]. School uniforms also increase the chance of rape[2] and should therefore be illegal under my opponent's case. Given that these things are now illegal, the government must seek out ways to decrease the chance of these actions being taken as well and eliminate them, according to my opponent's premise. If people have the freedom to gather in one place, they are more likely to celebrate or party, and therefore such an action should also be illegal. Given that when we follow my opponent's premise, gathering together should be illegal, religion must be illegal as well, because religious groups are more likely to gather on a regular basis than nonreligious groups. It should be obvious that in the United States of America, we should not base our laws on my opponent's premise, because it would lead to Unconstitutional restrictions in the name of fighting crime. Therefore, the slippery-slope crime premise is invalid. ===Why My Crime Defintion Premise is Valid=== The purpose of government is to protect its people's rights to govern their life and property[3]. Under this premise, crime is an act of coercion, denying another their rights to govern life and property. Such acts of coercion would be theft and rape. When government seeks to decrease the chances of such crimes occuring, they themselves commit a crime, by infringing on one's right to govern their life and property according to their own pursuit of happiness. Therefore, such an act of government as Drug Criminalization is an unwarranted and coercive abuse of government authority. I will now allow my opponent to respond. [1] . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] . http://www.klue.com.my... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. " So, we can see that, as the T&C"s stand, morally-bankrupt members of DDO who wish to use debates to advertise their personal websites are not currently prohibited from doing so. Vote Pro. Thank you.

Alright, I'll give you my reasons why cigarettes should be illegal. First off let us examine the FDA, Food and Drug administration. They are the people responsible for regulating products that come into the United States and deciding whether or not they are healthy. In the past they have stopped products with to much metal content, dangerous additives, dangerous supplements, health hazards in general. You argue that since some people know of the health risk therefor it is fair game however it can be seen of the American public, through the FDA, that some health risks are too great to be legal. Which brings me to my first point, "Cigarettes are proven to be highly addictive, as well as a cause of multiple types of cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, circulatory disease, birth defects (which include mental and physical disability) and emphysema." -This coming from Wiki through the CDC and Science Weekly. How do we as a society allow such an entity to exist in its current form? This is a product commonly found with over 100 additives in it that cause these harmful effects, is their no way to regulate some of those additives and decrease the effects? Profit > Life? Onto my second point, it causes birth defects. Even if I agreed with your freedom of choice idea this defeats it. While I don't mind abortion all that much because the baby will never know this world birth defects are quite a different story. To retard, or mentally disable a human being in some way for all of life is simply abhorrent. My third point, second hand smoke. This is once again one of those times when people don't have the choice. Now its dependent on whether someone happens to be smoking around you or not. The symptoms: -Cancer -Ear infections -Throat infections -Nose infections -heart disease -lung problems -asthma -premature birth -allergies -SIDS, Sudden infant death syndrome. Babies occasionally die. -Worsens Bronchitis -Increased risk of Tuberc -Risk of Crohn's disease. -Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children -Wiki I rest my third point on the fact that its the 3rd leading cause of preventable death. My fourth point. We are a society that disallows suicide on a moral level because it is akin to self murder. Yet we as a society allow smoking, in essence a slow and sometimes painful suicide for monetary profit. This is wrong. My fifth point. Cigarette butts are the number one most littered item in the world. They are not biodegradable. "In the 2006 International Coastal Cleanup, cigarettes and cigarette butts constituted 24.7% of the total collected garbage, over twice as much as any other category" - Wiki And with that I suppose I will rest my case for now. I stand open for my opponents rebuttal.

I was someone disappointed that some of my argument are not fully countered. Many are countered, but not fully. This is the whole thing that I have been trying to point out since Round 2: >Advertising is bad. It will gives bad effect to mature aged person and children. Instead of waiting it too late until mature-aged. An example will help. 8 yo kid: "Daddy, I want to buy that $500 Barbie Doll!" Dad : "Don't buy it. First it's pointless [insert morale lesson] Effect : Kids know their limit 15 yo kid: "I will buy that $5000 Alligator skinned bag!" Who's going to stop that kid? You may say parents, but unfortunately, kids who's are growing up are not gonna listen your advice. In this age where they're in 'transition mode', they will try to breakout, achieve freedom, including freedom from their parents. Putting morale lesson here will be too late. Here's what I have been trying to say since round 2. Instead of waiting until you're teen (or mature by age, whatever) and it turns out too late, like the example above, it's better to expose them since beginning. Pros mentioned that the reason that some government make some age limit, is because mature person make better decision, but better decision comes from childhood morale lesson. When someone's smoking, they don't blindfold their kid. No, they tell the kid that the person is smoking, and smoking is bad. Same logic applies to advertisement, they don't blindfold their kid when advertisement appears on TV, they tell the kid that is advertisement, and advertisement is bad for you. Rinse and repeat from age 0 until they mature enough. ( Pros argues that 17 years is short, but I honestly think that he haven't come up with a source that says so. ) Mature doesn't come instantly, it comes from lesson and experience. You don't suddenly turns instantly to become wise when you reach 17. You become wise from morale lesson. I like to mentioned that Pros keeps looking "to the past", by giving bad examples. Pros never considered if my idea is successful "to the future". Past is to know what's wrong with us, NOT to blame the future. In the past, we learned that we had not put enough emphasis on good parenting. Pros give 2 good examples of bullying and obese. This is what I emphasis. My solution is better parenting. We haven't try out 'better parenting', why scared out of hell and say that for 100% that 'better parenting' will fail? Again, bullying, obese, consumerism occurs due to bad parenting. My solution is better parenting. This is what I have being trying to say since round 2. It doesn't contradicts my argument, it's the reasoning of my argument. I'd like to give a quote to close my conclusion. We know fire. Fire, when small is good, you can cook food, heat your self, boil water. However, if it turns huge, it will burn everything and become enemy. Same logic applies to advertisement. When advertisement effect is controlled, it's good, when not it's bad. The controller is parents and government. Personal note: I'd like to argue that parents and teacher are pretty synonymous. I mean teacher's is your parent in school right? That's why I never bother to talk about school, because they give the same effect. Education. Unrelated note: Argh, 3 round is too short. I'd like to thank my Pros for providing good debate. This is my first debate. Thank you and may the best debater wins.

"support my statements with the assistance of others involved in the science in the form of citations as evidence only because I am not a superman"ah Ok then. Now we have established you are not Superman lets continue..."Then after your complaint is satisfied by circumstance"You lost me, what does that even mean?"Your first citation requires membership."No, just click the "Reference" tab & search, you do not need to member up or even sign in, just bother to take the time to look..To balance your comments on side effects, I have already agreed that medications do have side effects, that is a no brainer.The point is that the benefits outway the side effects and people choose to take the medications for this reason.People can always refuse medication except in very limited circumstances.People who suffer cancer know they will have very significant side effects from chemotherapy, the vast majority of people will choose to take the medication however.I really was hoping for a serious debate, however your arguments sound like Scientology. I fear you are not open to any perspective but that of your religion. I will however make a brief rebuttal within the word limit you set. I will not include the writing in the comments and ask voters to do the same. You say I must include it but you are mistaken as you set the agreed word limit. And as you say "hush, hush" take your own advice please."Treatment will be administered under scientific and legal guidelines however the process is of an experimental nature." I fear you just made that up."l considering he is imprisoned, the doctor prescribes a medicine."Being detained on mental health grounds would kind of suggest some treatment would be appropriate? "Science falls away when facing unmeasurable statistics"Sorry, what, is that an attempt at TWS?"For their entire lives patients carry their diagnoses with them".That is just plain stupid, where do you get this from. I have worked with numerous people with mental health problems and only the few with enduring illness have enduring diagnosis (label's as you strangely call them)."This is policy."No it's not. Prove it... You cant because it's complete fiction." It means that once someone is of a mentally ill nature they are always ill."Where do you get this BS?"These persons have skills and qualities that can benefit everyone and they need to be given the opportunity to utilize them."If you had any clue what on Earth you were talking about you would already know that the most part of support these days is support with learning these skills. This is along side medication and therapy where appropriate."I applaud the good emotional drive of these trying persons.""do not know how to help their patients so they wing it."I am sure Doctors around the globe are rejoicing in your words of gratitude. They do not "wing it", judgments are made on what has worked or not and the symptoms V's the medication actions available. "(Dr's)purposely poison customers"Seriously, are you simple or what, sorry but that really is stupid & offensive.You are either a troll or an idiot...Sorry but after accusing GP's of deliberately routinely poisoning their patients an numerous other plainly silly arguments, I do not think there is an intelligent debate to be had here.Please troll elsewhere...


Question: Should Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising Be Permitted?

Advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers can lead to inappropriate medication requests from patients to their doctors. The majority of advertised medications address conditions that are often under-treated, such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol. These ads can increase public awareness about health issues, encouraging people to consult their doctors and receive early treatment. Furthermore, informed patients contribute to a healthier society, as doctors might not always prescribe necessary or beneficial medications. In the current scenario, patients tend to under-utilize medical services, with only about half of American heart attack survivors receiving beta blockers, which are crucial for their recovery. An advertisement for beta blockers would serve an informative purpose, rather than being detrimental.

I, too, am dejected that one of us will no longer be in the tournament after this round. With how quickly I tend to respond compared to most people, the loser of this debate may even be the first person to officially be out of the tourney. Also, I give my gratitude to ye, Yraelz, that the opening argument wasn't an 8000 character wall of text. With that said, I will get on to my argument. Unlike how I would ordinarily do this, I will be putting my argument before any responses to my opponent's case. The reason will become apparent. _________________________________________ POINT 1 : The government can't violate pharmaceutical patents. 1a. Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug. 1b. To violate such a patent, one would have to produce said drug without being the patent holder. 1c. The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs. 1d. From 1b and 1c, we can draw the conclusion that the government cannot, should not, and will not violate any pharmaceutical patent. Clarification for 1c: The government's job is to govern. The government has no ability to produce goods, let alone drugs. Just as the government turns to defense contractors for tanks, etc, they would have to get a pharmaceutical company to produce the drugs for them. This company, if it was not the patent-holding company and the patent was still valid, would then be the one violating the patent, whereas the resolution clearly states that the government must be the one to violate the patent. _________________________________________ I was going to leave it at that, but I decided I'd throw in another, independent argument. _________________________________________ POINT 2 : An alternate, fairer, more effective advocacy. 2a. It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent. 2b. The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government. 2c. If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent. 2d. This plan is more fair then Yraelz' plan, and it avoids other disadvantages. Clarification for 2d: Disadvantages my plan avoids: In Yraelz's scenario, the entire use of a pharmaceutical patent would become meaningless. Companies spend billions of dollars researching new drugs, and because of this, they get to be the sole producers of the drug for X years. Without the patent, the company has no incentive to research drugs, especially drugs that could potentially cure dangerous, widespread diseases. Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research. These companies do research because of potential profit. And when they start losing profit on drugs of this type, they simply won't bother dumping their money into research for them. The government is no longer acting outside the law in my scenario, while it is in Yraelz's. The burden of paying for this is now put in the right hands: that of the government, the body that's deciding to give away these drugs. If my mom needs some pills that Yraelz happens to have, I can't simply take them from him because it might save a life. I must pay him for it. It would possibly be different if I had no money to pay him for the pills, but that is not the case here. The government has enough money, and they have plenty of ways to get more money. Intellectual theft is not required on part of the government, it can simply make a mutually agreeable exchange, just like everyone else has to. _________________________________________ So those are my two points for now. Since either of them makes the entirety of Yraelz' opening argument irrelevant, I need not respond to his argument unless these points fall. The points I have made, for now, are rebuttal enough. This means that if I can still argue the paradigm my opponent is operating under, I can still argue any of the point about malaria, etc. However, for the time, such arguments are unnecessary, and would only bloat the debate to an unnecessary level. Back to ye, Yraelz. Good luck, I know you'll think of something crazy.

You're on the top of the debater's list. So i want to see how you defend your position on drug legalization :D

As soon as possible, in the coming years, all current standards must be abolished. "Lets look a bit closer at some of the following statements offered as proof of conspiracy and the will of supposedly evil Doctors to poison their patients. "The act of imprisoning patients causes an anxiety disorder. Although before incarceration a patient would not have an anxiety disorder he would succumb to one in a hospital. " No, just no. This is obviously wrong on so many levels. Patients are no prisoners or convicts as you imply. you just can't help but troll can you. .English, although not most used, is most abundant around the world. There are often many English courses available in schools with open seats. Google first comes up with, "Typical Woman Syndrome," "Tivoli Workload Schedule," and the "The Wildlife Society. " TWS is not a common acronym. The 1st is very sexist and of no meaning while the 2nd and 3rd too simply have no meaning. It is important to speak in a manner which is of understanding to the receiving party. For example very common acronyms and proper English. Forgive me I have no idea why you are talking about this, is it relevant somehow? "I understand the fact that formal permanent diagnoses is very stupid. "In some cases it is appropriate. ie Diabetes"These days, support for patients includes: arts and crafts"Nope you are thinking of the 1970's. Recovery focus does not mean arts & crafts. "The parents brought in a psychiatrist who declared the patient was having a psychotic episode. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. "How does this help your resolution. If anything you are pointing out why we need MORE treatment not less. "I know a child who was abused by his upper middle class parents his entire life. He was not permitted to learn to write nor make friends. The abuse was so bad his health failed and he could not survive on his own. His parents forced him to see a psychiatrist and take medicine. In a hospital in Phoenix, Arizona, I was witness to his major withdrawals from an incorrectly prescribed muscle relaxant. Death was a likely possibility to the patient. " Cool story bro. But seriously, suggesting we should abolish treatment for mental health because you knew a kid once for whom what you know of didn't go well. . "Mentally ill patients should not be left to suffer unavoidable circumstances and be given the opportunity, very often with pressure from abusers, to ingest poison. " Vulnerable people need more support. We know and do this already. This is not what you started out suggesting as your resolution. In fact quite the opposite. "If a wife does not understand why her husband cheats on her, parents abuse their child, students bully their classmate, should the unable victim be prescribed, like a drug addict, medications or should he be guided on what action to take and given assistance? "What has cheating wives got to do with anything ? More loaded arguments. "At this point through the fog and chemicals in his mind the patient exclaimed his parents were trying to murder him. "He sounds paranoid to me. Definitely in need of medication and support. But hey maybe they were trying to murder him? If you think that's the more likely answer. He was court ordered to take anti psychotics for a year. He is now still very ridden with physical health problems and is living in a homeless shelter. Is his treatment correct or should he be given better options? You decide. OK, I think you haven't given anywhere near the full story of that case and you have dramatised it to try and push your own agenda. I think all you care about is your agenda, not the well being of people suffering mental illnesses at all. I work with severely delusional people , they all have a way more realistic view of mental health services than the one you have put forwards. Please consider what you say to people as you can do great harm with your right wing ideation/ideology.

Thank you Mikel for that touching story about your grandmother. May she rest in peace. Now I want to tell you about three other stories about assisted suicide. These are the stories of Barbara Wagner, Kate Cheney, and Randy Stroup and they all live in Oregon, a state since 1998 that has allowed assisted suicide to be a treatment for patients. Let's tell the story of Barbara first, then move to Kate and finally to Stroup's story. Barbara was a 64 year old suffering from lung cancer in the state of Oregon. She was on Medicare and she asked the state for to lowered the cost for medicine that she thought she was going to get. Instead of the $4,000 a mouth drug plan her doctor prescribed to her, she was given drugs for assisted suicide that costs around $50. Wagner went on ABCNews and told her story saying that "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from a doctor and we will stand there and watch you die" (her words, not mine). Wagner got the medicine she wanted from the state and lived for another year around people she cared about. Kate was a 85 year old women also from Oregon that according to a professional psychiatrist, Kate was cognitively impaired and that means that she could not remember recent events or people and was not mentally stable to ask if her life can be taken away. Sadly this doctor was moved away Kate and the second physician found that she was depressed and that it was treatable. Instead of being treated for her depression, she got in touch with Dr. Peter Goodwin, a medical doctor at the pro-euthanasia organization "Compassion in Dying". After battling cancer for 22 years, she died by assisted suicide on March 1998 death. One of the first assisted suicides in the state of Oregon after the passing of the new bill allowing euthanasia could have been preventable with any kind of Antidepressant and a better handling of her mental state. Finally we get to Randy Stroup more happier story. Randy like Wagner applied and asked the State of Oregon to help him provide for the medicine he needed to combat that cancer he had. Like Wagner he was on Medicare and like Wagner was denied treatment. According to Stroup "(How could they) not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life". After his story hit the media, the state gave him the medicine he asked for and should be provided for. All three of these people live in the same state, all three had some kind of cancer, all three needed medicine to combat their cancers and yet all three were denied from the start to the right to get health care and all three where instead given the right to die. To me, these stories tell me that the State of Oregon was using something that advocates say will help people die peacefully to really using it so they could not pay for their medicine all three of these cancer patients want. It sounds to me like the State of Oregon is using the Right to Die as a way of avoiding the right health care and medicine. Oregon is also a very rich state and has a small population within the US and if this kind of pro-euthanasia law like this were put in into action in states like New York and California then we could see state saving millions of dollars for health care but killing people that don't really want to die and just want to get to there medicine and treatment. Also studies have shown that 93-94% of people wanting to commit suicide suffer from a mental disorder and that most patients wanting to commit suicide have under gone extreme emotional and physical pain leading them into depression and of those patients many want to seek help to deal with their depression and they use the reason for suicide as way of crying for help. Most disorders for depression are treatable and after the patient gets that treatment they usually never talk or rarely think of suicide again. If patients deal with extreme pain and ask to commit suicide then that pain is very much treatable. According to the a February 1993 in the Anesthesiology, 70-80% to all cases of widespread cancer is manageable by oral administration and that many treatments of pain reduction are blocked or not understood by the medical staff. In 1969, psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross outline 5 stages of the dying process, denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Since that time Dr. Kubler-Ross has stated that suicide is wrong for terminal ill patients because she states that "(But assisting a Suicide is) cheating them of those lessons like taking a student out of school before final exams. That's not love, it projecting your own unfinished business". So that means when a patient is depressed then suicide is not the right answer and leading them to acceptance of that fact that they are going to die is better for that person. My final point will be the legal and moral troubles around assisted suicide. Like in the cases of Wagner, Cheney, and Stroup, states can use the euthanasia laws to not allow people medicine and override the patients right to life and health care. Because of this example, the right to death may conflict to the right of health care or to life leading to a lot of legal and ethnic troubles. Also if we allow assisted suicide to happen, the views on suicide may change from from "We respect your wishes" to "we don't care if you live or die" allowing suicide outside assisted suicide to be lawful and socially allowed. Personally I think if someone wants to die whether healthy or ill, there is a bigger issue or issues underneath the surface of the plea for death, so instead of allowing that person life we just kill them off instead of helping them through the issues they have. That seems to me that assisted suicide is just a easy way to avid the real problems with someone ill or healthy that want to die. Sources are http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.nrlc.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.herpeculiarlife.blogspot.ca... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.deathasalesman.com...

I would like to start this round by thanking my opponent for responding. He is a new user on the website and I am glad that he seems committed. Now, let's examine his initial arguments.Battle of MoralityMy opponent opens up with the statement that this is not a debate. A small correction: it is. He tells us that this is a battle of morality. But how is this the case? Neither of us had affirmed objective morality prior to this debate. What is moral to one person may or may not be moral to another. This is beside the point. Most of us can agree that 443,000 people dying because of smoking cigarettes is bad, but is it appropriate to infringe on the constitutional rights of tobacco companies and to implement anti-free market legislation? Apparently not, as there are plenty of harmful things on the markets in the US that are not targeted by the same anti-free speech and anti-free market legislation as the tobacco industry. Let's use the example of alcohol and dive a little deeper into the statistics surrounding youth and alcohol:- In 2014, 24.7 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they engaged in binge drinking in the past month. [1] The number of people in 2010 who were 18 or over was 234,564,071. [2] What is 24.7 percent of 234,564,071? It is roughly 57,937,326 people. What are the effects of binge drinking? They include: Unintentional injuries (e.g., car crashes, falls, burns, drowning) Intentional injuries (e.g., firearm injuries, sexual assault, domestic violence) Alcohol poisoning Sexually transmitted diseases Unintended pregnancy Children born with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders High blood pressure, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases Liver disease Neurological damage Sexual dysfunction Poor control of diabetes [3] - 16.3 million adults ages 18 and older (6.8 percent of this age group) had an AUD [Alcohol Use Disorder] in 2014. This includes 10.6 million men (9.2 percent of men in this age group) and 5.7 million women (4.6 percent of women in this age group). [1] - In 2014, an estimated 679,000 adolescents ages 12–17 (2.7 percent of this age group) had an AUD. This number includes 367,000 females (3.0 percent of females in this age group) and 311,000 males (2.5 percent of males in this age group). [1] - Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States. [1] -In 2010, alcohol misuse problems cost the United States $249.0 billion. Three-quarters of the total cost of alcohol misuse is related to binge drinking. [1] While there are some youth statistics in what I have already listed, the NIH does provide some statistics just on youth in America. This is important to highlight, as my opponent has consistently referenced the need to keep tobacco marketing away from youth because of its dangers, yet this line of reasoning seems to fall apart when it comes to alcohol:- According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 5.3 million people (about 13.8 percent) ages 12–20 were binge drinkers (15.8 percent of males and 12.4 percent of females. [1] - According to the 2014 NSDUH, approximately 1.3 million people (about 3.4 percent) ages 12–20 were heavy drinkers (4.6 percent of males and 2.7 percent of females). [1]And what are the consequences of drinking while underage? "Research indicates that alcohol use during the teenage years could interfere with normal adolescent brain development and increase the risk of developing an AUD. In addition, underage drinking contributes to a range of acute consequences, including injuries, sexual assaults, and even deaths--including those from car crashes". [1]ConclusionMy opponent argued that the United States government should keep its restrictions on tobacco marketing because cigarettes are "dangerous." These restrictions are "keeping minors and adults safe." This would be a great line of reasoning if the United States government was consistent and did this with all dangerous products on the market. Tobacco products are risky and dangerous, that is a fact. It is also factually true that alcohol is risky and dangerous. Yet the United States puts unconstitutional restrictions on the marketing of one but not the other. My opponent may believe that alcohol should also have legislation put on it to restrict marketing, but that is simply not the case right now in the US. Until that happens, my opponent's argument is unsound and inconsistent with current US practices in regard to these issues. My opponent has done a great job of explaining how these regulations are created and how they are enforced. I do not disagree with any of this. However, he has ultimately failed to justify why these restrictions should exist. Simply saying that the product is dangerous is not enough when there are other dangerous products that have very little to no marketing restrictions. To be sure, I do not disagree with my opponent in his final sentence. The use of tobacco products is dangerous, which is why I do not use them. Alcohol is also dangerous and I do not use it. Marijuana, while illegal in my state (yet it is legal in others), is also dangerous. I would not choose to use it even if it were legal. No one is claiming that tobacco products are not harmful to those who use them. I and many others are simply saying that this war on the tobacco industry is unconstitutional and anti-free market. It is also inconsistent with other industries in the US.Sources[1] https://www.niaaa.nih.gov...[2] http://www.census.gov...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...

===Answering my opponent's first objection=== "Once your [sic] hooked, you are probably going to be hooked for a while. " The human body is "hooked" on many other substances that aren't drugs, like food and water, except to a much larger degree. To advocate for mind-altering drugs to be illegal on this premise should include an advocation for food and water to be illegal as well. ===The Flaw in My Opponent's Crime Definition Premise=== My opponent's case relies solely on the premise that something making one more likely to commit crimes should be illegal. Given this, we can derive that sororities should also be illegal. This is because their existence increases the chance of sexual assault[1]. Parties and celebrations should also be illegal because they also increase the chances of rape[1]. School uniforms also increase the chance of rape[2] and should therefore be illegal under my opponent's case. Given that these things are now illegal, the government must seek out ways to decrease the chance of these actions being taken as well and eliminate them, according to my opponent's premise. If people have the freedom to gather in one place, they are more likely to celebrate or party, and therefore such an action should also be illegal. Given that when we follow my opponent's premise, gathering together should be illegal, religion must be illegal as well, because religious groups are more likely to gather on a regular basis than nonreligious groups. It should be obvious that in the United States of America, we should not base our laws on my opponent's premise, because it would lead to Unconstitutional restrictions in the name of fighting crime. Therefore, the slippery-slope crime premise is invalid. ===Why My Crime Defintion Premise is Valid=== The purpose of government is to protect its people's rights to govern their life and property[3]. Under this premise, crime is an act of coercion, denying another their rights to govern life and property. Such acts of coercion would be theft and rape. When government seeks to decrease the chances of such crimes occuring, they themselves commit a crime, by infringing on one's right to govern their life and property according to their own pursuit of happiness. Therefore, such an act of government as Drug Criminalization is an unwarranted and coercive abuse of government authority. I will now allow my opponent to respond. [1] . http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] . http://www.klue.com.my... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

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!

I accept. Resolved: Should doctors be allowed to be allowed to give you vaccines? I'd like to note, of course, that my adversary misspelled "allowed" when crafting this resolution. "Aloud" is not a verb, and clearly we can draw "allowed" from this resolution and his opening remarks contextually. With that said, let's define "allowed": "to permit (something) : to regard or treat (something) as acceptable" [1]. Note that to allow is to permit, NOT to mandate. Simply because a doctor is allowed to administer a vaccine to a patient does not allow him or her to mandate it nor to require it. That is up to the patient. By prohibiting doctors from giving you or recommending vaccines, not only are you denying people the right to self-defense, but you are restricting freedom of choice. People should be able to do as they wish provided that they don't hurt others, so therefore patients should be allowed to accept or request from a doctor a vaccine. Not to mention, vaccines provide a substantive benefit to our lives in preempting harmful, vicious diseases. Con's opening remarks, however, are highly deceptive. First, allowing doctors to give vaccines does not require that patients, kids included, undergo it. Second, it isn't even a regular procedure, but even if it were, you're allowed to deny it. Third, especially in the case of kids, parents are making these decisions, and prohibiting doctors from giving vaccines is undermining parental authority, not to mention casting a blind eye to advancements in medicine. I'll pass back to Con at this moment, as he hasn't offered much substantive argumentation in Round 1, so I don't feel the need to go into more detail at this point. [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

That's what I was thinking most of the time and I do agree but they should do something about people taking other peoples medicines and iv been saying that the whole time and I can tell u to shut up if I want to

-----Definitions----- should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Don't ask don't tell - is a 2002 movie directed by Doug Miles . http://www.imdb.com... allowed - permit; to forbear or neglect to restrain or prevent . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should be allowed (to exist). My opponent is arguing that the 2002 movie "Don't ask don't tell" should not be allowed (to exist). My opponent obviously has a tremendous burden of proof. I can think of no good reason to not allow a movie to exist, I hope my opponent has some. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.