Arguing Both Sides

The class was divided perfectly down the middle: two rows of 14 students facing each other in competitive opposition. This was our first in-class debate. I had mentally prepared for it all day. I scrutinized the literature, built my vocabulary, and checked my personal agenda. When Sal asked the class to chose sides, I didn't even think twice. But, of course, true to academic form, the professor challenges his students in an attempt to expand their minds.

"For this debate, I want those of you who are for the decriminalization of drugs to argue against it and vice versa. I ask this because that the best way to argue an issue is to know the other side, that way you can find loopholes in the opposing arguements."

(Disclaimer: I use the term 'drugs' because our debate encompassed every category of illicit drugs with no specific one in mind. Personally, I believe in the decriminalization of only marijuana which, fortunately, is a reality in the City and County of San Francisco. As for heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines etc... I, in no way, shape or form, advocate their use.)

Shit. All of a sudden, my confidence level plummeted. I feared that because I didn't feel passionately enough about the opposing view I wouldn't be able to competently defend it. The entire class appeared to feel the same way, raising the question, "How can you expect us to argue for something that we don't believe in?" However, as the debate started, I began to see Sal's point. I was ready to argue the benefits that decriminalization would lead to - issues of increased tax revenue, decreased incarceration/crime rates, and stronger regulation policies to name a few. Now I had to take all that preparation and find a way to discredit the argument that I had built.

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would provide an opportunity for the government to tax drugs as goods. The extra revenue would help boost the economy and provide funding for other programs such as education. It would create a market for new employment opportunities."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would create a market of goods that would more than likely become privatized and handled by major corporations, as is the case with most prescription drugs. This would provide another venue for the wealthy 1% to create a larger gap between the upper and lower classes. Demand for drugs is high in the lower income bracket and decriminalization would allow for the exploitation of the lower class."

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would solve the issue of overcrowding in state prisons. With fewer people charged with possession, distribution, sale, etc. of drugs the inmate population would decrease dramatically. Many who are incarcerated on drug charges weren't even convicted of serious violent crimes anyway."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would decrease the need for an expansive corrections department, which is a billion dollary industry, especially in California. Thousands of people would lose their jobs which would have a tremendous effect on society. And what would the state do with the all of the prisoners? Release them back into society with an apology? Not only will the state see legal action, the Federal government could face thousands, if not millions, of lawsuits from angry ex-inmates and their families demanding restitution for infringement of their constitutional rights."

(The two following arguments have more to do with the legalization of drugs which is completely different from the decriminalization of drugs. The term decriminalization was used for debate's sake.)

Pro: "The decriminalization of drugs would allow the government to regulate drugs the same way food is regulated by the FDA. The government would be able to regulate to whom the drugs would be available(e.g., individuals over a certain age), drug potencies, and methods of distribution, etc."

Con: "The decriminalization of drugs would not eliminate a black market for drugs because drugs will always be denied to some sector of the population whether it be children under the age of 18 or to the low-income who may not be able to afford them. Furthermore, a new set of laws would have to be created. Law enforcement would be faced with dilemmas on who will be able to use drugs and when. For instance, would airline pilots or school bus drivers be able to use drugs?"

Needless to say, the debate wasn't as clean and clear cut as Sal had hoped it would turn out. Many of the students could not stick to one issue at a time and, although we agreed to not take the debate personal, some of us walked out of class with bruised egos. For myself, I have come to believe that any change in drug policy would have an adverse effect on society. If we took away issues of money and the right to individual autonomy (in this case, the right to be in control of our consciousness) Americans would still be left with the grim reality that drugs, legal or not, cause deterioration in ourselves, our communities, and our country as a whole.

It struck me how passionately I argued against decriminalization, considering how strongly I felt (or thought I felt) about it in the beginning of class. I began to see that my knowledge of the subject was not sufficient enough for me to stand completely firm in my initial opinions on the subject. That's what education is for - an opportunity to develop one's personal beliefs through gained knowledge.

On another note, throughout the debate my heartbeat raced. I love heated debate. It drives me.