Question: Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement

Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [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

Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.”[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies. [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011, http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011

Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization. [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the "diagnosis" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their "patients" to have serious medical problems -Thank you

Title: Drug Commercials Content: Ok, my opponent has basically just conceded the resolution. The resolution states that drug commercials should be legally policed. My opponent just conceded that they are legal and has not attacked my argument on constitutional legality. As far as my opponent's argument goes, he basically uses an example of a company using ads to mislead the public. Again, drug companies can do that. The question is whether or not the company should be punished. And my opponent says that these ads are bad as a whole. In most scenarios, they're actually good because patients learn about the product and the company makes money. Again my opponent just conceded the legality argument (which is what the resolution is about) and is losing the ethics argument.

Title: Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement Content: Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: Creating a mentality of illness Content: Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their 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

Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on. Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.

Title: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo Content: Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs. [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002, http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients

Title: Drug Commercials Content: I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.

Title: The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent. Content: The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: *NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term "relative". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world." Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word "Costs" as used in the debate title is defined as "The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as "Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup." I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.

Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.

Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic

Title: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine Content: By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full

Title: Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients Content: If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand. In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert. [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005, www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: Legalization would send the wrong message that drug-use is acceptable. Content: Consumption is wrong and should never be authorized. Legalising drugs would only make them appear more acceptable. This would undermine health campaigns by suggesting that drugs are not too harmful or even harmless.

Title: ban targeted online advertising on the basis of user profiles and demographics Content: Better targeted advertising benefits consumers

Title: Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits Content: Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].

Title: allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers Content: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses

Title: The United States government should reform drug patent time limits. Content: Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. "They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.

Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: 1) the reason Tylenol doesn't need a prescription is because it is a safe drug whereas other medicines, including antibiotics, may have consequences depending on medical history or other drugs you are taking. .. . 2) I'm not citing the FDA there I read their mission statement which jut says what their job is. .. . And that doesn't dismiss how your site "The FDA Kills" isn't less biased. .. As for the "Consumer reports" that could replace the FDA, these small independent groups have not nearly enough influence, manpower, or funding to label, test, inspect, approve, and remove medical drugs on and off the market that the FDA does. .. Replacing the FDA with consumer reports would be similar to replacing the US Navy with armed fishing boats. .. Furthermore it is not my fault that the definition of drug is too vague for your standards, next time you should offer your own definition of what a drug is rather than just pay a meaningless opinion. .. As for the Cheerios argument, Cheerios are only classified as a drug, nothing else though has been done by the FDA. You can still buy them anywhere and they are not regulated by the FDa in anyway because last I checked you don't need a prescription to buy a box of them. .. A biased source is any source that gives a very unbalanced and slanted account of facts to imply any opinion over a matter that isn't true. The article you gave does exactly that. 3) if you think the FDA is slow to respond in removing a drug in one case where in other cases they acted rather fast in removing harmful drugs off the market other times then that debunks this argument. But I would like to add that since only the FDA can remove harmful drugs from the market then whether they do it fast enough to satisfy your demands wouldn't matter since they would still be protecting consumers from a harmful drug since they removed it from the market. .. As for your interview it seems that Dr Graham failed to acknowledge how the FDA protects consumers by labeling ingredients in drugs, requiring certain drugs to be accessible only if a doctor prescribes them, and prevents and removes many harmful drugs from the market at all. .. His biased rant against the FDA may be due to the fact that he was Simply over-critical of the performance of the FDa over a particular incident. Many people within the FAA thought the agency could have helped prevent 9/11, does that mean it should be abolished completely? No, because like the FDA it still serves a valuable and important service. .. 4) The Pro admits the FDA encourages drug companies to create safer drugs even without regulations. .. As for the number of drugs removed in 1980 then found onthe market in 1990, they could have very well been studied closer, reengineered, and limited to a more narrow client base to ensure safety. .. Some drugs may be harmful to some people but may also be completely harmless to others. .. As for the rest of his argument, The FDA can be occasionally slow or non productive, but you cant simply do away with it for the following reasons 1) the alleged costs drug companies face these days are not entirely due to FDA regulations, it could come from salaries, equipment fees, research, etc that could cost millions that are needed just to create a drug, not to make it meet standards 2) the pro wants to rely completely on independent, uncoordinated research institutes to do the FDAs job instead, but all of these independent institutes lack the manpower and funding to come even close to the productivity the FDA puts out 3) the regulations they impose are proven to protect consumers and the PRO annoy deny that. 4) the only reason the Pro wants to eliminate the FDA is because it harms the profits of a few dozen drug companies for the protection of hundreds of millions of people. .. 5) Most importantly, see number 3. ..

Title: grant those diagnosed with terminal illnesses the right to access treatments that have not completed clinical testing Content: This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine

Title: Marketers are not catering to the needs, instead they are creating some new needs Content: I accept! I will be arguing that most marketers cater to the needs of consumers, and do not create new needs. I liked this topic as I am interested in starting my own business in the future, and starting a business requires a lot of marketing. So I thought it would be a good idea to accept this debate. I wish Pro luck. Rebuttals: 1) Let’s take this from the top. Pro states: "Marketers, create an untrue hype about things most of which have very little to do with the real problems that the product aims to address. Consider the latest adds that have successfully managed to convince the audience that perhaps drinking one kind of carbonated drink really determines your standards, thinking process and personality! " Lets take the example provided of carbonated drinks. Take this Coca-Cola commercial: . http://www.youtube.com... While marketers do try to add personality, humor, etcetera into advertisements, they cater to the needs of consumers. For instance, people criticize soda because it is unhealthy. A healthier soda is a need (want) of consumers. In response to this need, Coca-Cola introduced low to no calorie sodas and assorted drinks. This is a direct response to the needs of consumers. Instead of introducing a problem, it is solving one. 2) Pro also states: “I would rather say it really shows that the people have fallen a clear victim to the classical prank by the marketers, backed by the ambition to fool people to buy in their stuff! ” That’s how advertising works. If they said: “Buy our product. It’s good, it’s cheap. ” No one would buy it. Also, companies’ goals are not to trick people into buying products. It’s to make money, provide jobs, and provide products. 3) Another thing Pro states is: “Another example is the perfume advertisement that says women are more impressed by applying it! In fact it goes a step beyond that a seemingly unattractive guy gets too many girls pouncing on him just because he has applied that particular brand of perfume! Really, grow up buddy! who are they trying to prove a fool here! women, who would run after men only for the smell? ? While this is a strong argument, that is not to point of the advertisement. Consumers want good smelling cologne and perfume. They don’t want bad smelling perfume because that would simply be counterintuitive. Marketers are simply showing that their cologne smells good. They are advertising to the consumers want. Arguments: Marketers are essential to the success of a company. Without making their advertisements interesting or informative, people would not most likely not buy their products, and go for a different brand. Thank you for setting up this debate.

Title: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs Content: Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2]. “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs. This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more. [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003, http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/

Title: drugs should be legalized Content: My rationale for insisting on this is as follows: The resolution, as currently written, could be fairly interpreted either in a way that is unfairly favorable to pro or a way that is unfairly favorable to con. By way of example, one could insist that the resolution means, "there exist some drugs that are not yet legal for consumption that should become legal for consumption," which would be trivial for Pro to demonstrate, given that there exist many pharmaceutical compounds that have not yet been approved but that would have useful therapeutic effects. One could also insist that the resolution means, "every compound that can be classified as a drug should be legal for consumption," which is a resolution that is very favorable to Con. One could also take a middle-of-the-road approach, which is what I believe was intended, and say that the resolution means, "the substances that are currently used as recreational drugs should be legalized, with some conditions, for human use. " I invite Pro to clarify the resolution according to the guidelines I have provided, and to begin his argument. I look forward to our debate.

Title: Everyone, stop doing drugs! Content: Two baseless assertions in Pro's conclusion. I will conclude by saying that the drugs do serve a purpose and can have a positive - and healthy - benefit on peoples lives.

Title: Its a business, a business doing its job Content: So what if they advertise? Its your self control that says "no i shouldn't have that today". If you don't like it, then don't like it. But lets face, they have hundreds of customers per day. Just because you dont agree with fast food doesn't mean no one does. Should we ban advertisements for cookies? Soda? Energy drinks? other 'junk food'? Besides, eating a big mac, some fries and a drink from mcdonalds is better than eating most dishes you can get at an italian restaurant. In face, pizza is really bad for you too. Should we ban pizza advertisements? Do some research to whats bad for you. Most things contain something that people complain about. From Vitamin Water to Perscription Medications. And yes, Meds that have advertisments could be bad for you too! In turn, with the logic of the "yes" argument, nothing should be advertised.

Title: Assisted suicide should be illegal. Content: Thanks to FourTrouble. I'm going to shift up the order. 1. The Case The case is vague. What company would produce and distribute these drugs? No company is going to want to have their name associated with the spread of suicide meds. How would distribution work? What company would want to stock medication meant to kill its customers? Again, reputation matters. Pro seems to be advocating for an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, but with no regulation beyond a label and maybe a waiting period. What regulatory agency would approve this, in any country? Laws against suicide would have to be ignored, and people would understandably mistrust a government supporting the distribution of deadly meds and disregarding its own laws. Further, what is preventing someone from committing suicide without this? Pro is merely providing another means by which these individuals can commit suicide. They already have OTC drugs that are commonly used for the purpose.[1] The differences are intended function and less certainty of death. Pro will have to explain how his case provides any unique benefit. What is clear is that Pro is not legalizing suicide. He's making deadly drugs available, but not the action they facilitate. Thus, he's promoting an illegal act by providing widespread access to a drug that no one is legally allowed to use. Pro is also increasing the visibility of suicide. These drugs would presumably be widely available, exposing people to it every time they step into a drug store. That sort of availability makes every store that stocks it a reminder that suicide is just a small purchase away. So, what's the harm? First, Pro hasn't included any safeguards preventing those with mental disorders from getting these drugs. These people can acquire and use them, cutting their lives tragically short while they are incapable of informed consent. Assisted suicide acts has those safeguards. A doctor must obtain informed consent in order to prescribe medication. A pharmacist at the local CVS has no such duty with OTC meds. Assisted suicide also results in psychological evaluations that can help patients access effective mental health services and treatment. For those hiding mental illness, it opens the eyes of their doctors and families, giving them a network of support and knowledge of treatment options. When patients are mentally competent, the discussion that results from pursuing assisted suicide can address feelings of guilt and recrimination. These cannot be addressed if a person pursues suicide privately. Second, the drugs become a temptation. Regular exposure to that temptation can lead many to suicide when things seem at their worst. Whether they purchase it as a security blanket or simply walk by the Wallgreens every day to know that it's there, these people aren't always going to be stable. They'll have bad days, and be tempted when they do. Pro is allowing short-term temptations to turn into actual suicides. Third, Pro's system would allows anyone to acquire these drugs, dramatically increasing their spread without a means to monitor their ownership/usage. How can we determine that the person who took the medication did so knowingly? Societies have two choices: either every case where suicide occurs ends in a murder investigation, which turns Pro's privacy point, or countless murders get treated as suicides, allowing murderers to escape justice and kill again. 2. Unintended Consequences Pro talks about weak safeguards, but uses practically none in his case. At least assisted suicide (in my case) requires patients to make an appointment, discuss their decision with their doctor, get a psychological evaluation, and those appointments plus any waiting periods create a built in wait time (no "perhaps" here) during which they can change their mind. Pro's case uses none of these. Any risk of harm here is writ large in Pro's case. He allows anyone to acquire these medications, which means anyone can use them. When these drugs adorn store shelves and medicine cabinets, there's almost no barrier to their acquisition or use, and no means to prevent coercion by any other figure. A majority of doctors in the U.S. support assisted suicide,[2] and just because they can't prescribe these OTC drugs doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend them. Recommendations aren't regulated and it's much harder to hold physicians accountable for them. Governments endorsing the spread of a suicide medication sends a much stronger "message that early death is respectable", not to mention "pre-approv[ing] all suicides", than a tightly regulated system of assited suicide. But what's truly baffling is this statement: "That's a scary prospect considering that 95% of suicide attempts don't attempt suicide again, because they're often just a cry for help." Remember, Pro is giving these people a very effective means to commit suicide. All of these "attempts" would become successess, which means that these cries for help are going to become death notes. This isn't a small number " the CDC estimates that for every successful suicide attempt, there are 25 that are unsuccessful. That amounts to almost 1,000,000 people who are far more likely to succeed with their attempts annually.[3] And that's just in the U.S.! It also assumes that Pro's plan doesn't increase the number of attempts, which, as I explained earlier, it is likely to do so. Pro hasn't shown any evidence that these minority harms translate to assisted suicide, nor does he impact them if they do. 3. Corruption The view that it is intentionally harmful to give specifically requested drugs to fully consenting patients is absurd; continuing to treat ineffectively, often causing/prolonging/allowing further suffering is far more harmful and deliberate. The role of doctors is complex. It is the duty of doctors to support patient autonomy and self-determination, but a large part of those functions is ensuring that their patients can give informed consent. Pro's plan ensures that many patients will acquire deadly medication without that consent, whether as a result of diminished rational capacity or coercion. Doctors must also consider beneficence and non-maleficence in their decisions for their patients, both of which are achieved by minimizing suffering. As for R&D, individual doctors making the rare choice to prescribe this medication isn't going to change the reality of what suicide means for the vast majority of people. However, a government facilitarting the distribution of these drugs for easy acquisition definitely changes the focus of how funds are used, both by the population at larger and the government itself. 4. Suicide Pro shows a single instance in which it was used for a social message (that notably involved a much flashier form of suicide), but never clarifies why suicide must retain greater meaning. Why can't a message like this take other forms, like public protest? Pro hasn't stated any impact for lost meaning, nor has he explained how a medical choice necessarily has less meaning beyond this assertion of neutrality. A beneficial outcome for a patient is good, a hrmful one is bad. The messages that accompany such a decision can have value, too. But this whole point is non-unique. Suicide is a medical choice, whether it's made following conference with a doctor or by personal choice. Changing the means by which that choice is made possible (a doctor's prescription or an OTC drug) doesn't change the reality of its medical nature, just as performing surgery on oneself instead of paying a doctor to do it doesn't alter what surgery fundamentally is. If that nature makes it harder for some people to decide that life's worth living, then both of our cases suffer that harm. 5. Freedom Pro conflates assisted suicide and euthanasia. Remember from Pro's R1 clarification: "the patient is the final causal actor in his or her own death." Euthanasia requires physician administration of deadly medication at the patient's request. Assisted suicide is a two-way street " the doctor must prescribe the medication, allowing the patient the capacity to administer it.[4] Thus, a doctor cannot "mistakenly kill persons without their consent," as Pro claimed earlier. Nor does it lead to non-consensual euthanasia, as assisted suicide makes the patient the administrator. Doctors don't have to see the difference between withdrawing care and assisting suicide Both are based on the wishes of the patient, and both of which embody the right to refuse/consent. The doctor can do nothing, in either instance, without the refusal/consent of the patient or their family. The line between the two is, thus, drawn by the the consenting party. Death doesn't need to be a public event. Assisted suicide doesn't necessitate a deathbed viewing, but it is certainly still safer without this than Pro's own plan. 6. Equality Life doesn't have instrumental value, but life experience does. That value can be based on objective evaluations of circumstances; in this case, suffering and imminent death. The problem with Pro's reasoning is that he's saying society uses assisted suicide to apply that value, yet it is entirely personal and applied through their informed consent. The fact that society facilitates that decision doesn't mean that it's treating them as dispensible, certainly not any more so in my case than in Pro's. Assisted suicide sends no message of expendability " again, these are consenting patients whose lives are almost certainly nearing their end. It's not based on someone else's evaluation of their worth. Recognizing the objective differences between the medical and psychological realities of these patients doesn't cheapen anyone's existence; it recognizes that these patients so thoroughly lack control over their circumstances that they should be allowed a means to acquire it. Over to you, Pro. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://ti.me... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly...

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) Through marketing/advertising, comes interest from the viewers, causing them to buy the product. If the government could get a good amount of advertising, there would be a surplus of customers. 1b) Regulation would be somewhat easier if the drugs were sold in orderly and recordable pharmacies. Thus, regulating the drug trade would not be much harder than regulating and inspecting the condition and distribution of food, for example. 2a) By granting these criminals amnesty, it will be easier for them to find some sort of job. There would be no record of criminal activity (at least regarding first-time felons) to be held against them. 2b) As for the role of certain drugs in the commitment of crimes, this can be handled by keeping a record of how much of that drug one person owns, and setting a limit on it. For example, there would be a limit on the amount of ecstasy that could be purchased at one time, and if your record states that you already have an amount of this drug that would exceed the limit, you would not be allowed to buy it. You would also need to show a signed from that states the police inspected your home to make sure you don't have that drug. In addition, consider these scenarios from: http://www.taxfoundation.org... In this scenario, which is very common and could be considered the average amount of customers from one dealer, the drug dealer makes more money than the average worker. If you put a tax on that, it is very possible that whatever money lost through fundraising, rehabilitation, lawsuits, etc. could be gained back. I stated that the risk was worth taking because it is. The reason being, any financial hole that is caused by legalizing drugs can be fixed and replenished, and would make the government billions of dollars. Why vote pro: 1. Government income would skyrocket. 2. The crime rate related to drugs would decrease with the proper support (regulation). 3. Most, if not all, of the problems encountered can be solved fairly quickly.

Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: I agree that modern commerce trade and industry cannot survive without advertisement. The most advanced advertising technology course gives new ideas and also acts as "Survival of fittest" in this dynamic decade. However there should be control over misleading advertisements. I believe that Advertisements should not mislead in any way by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise. More specifically, advertisements should not: 1-Misrepresent any matter likely to influence consumers" attitude to any product, advertiser, or promoter; 2-Misrepresent any information to mislead consumers into believing any matter that is not true, such as the source of the product, quality of the product, obligation (or non-obligation) in using a trial product, and others; 3-Mislead consumers about the price of goods or services; 4-Underestimate the actual total price to be paid; 5-Mislead consumers to overestimate the value or mislead consumers regarding the conditions on the terms of payment such as hire purchase, leasing, installment sales and credit sales; or 6-Mislead consumers regarding the terms or guarantee, delivery, exchange, return, repair and maintenance; and mislead consumers regarding the extent of benefits for charitable causes. If a presentation (such as a speech, documentary and newsreel) is substantially an advertisement, it should be clearly stated as an advertisement. 1-Advertisements should not misuse research results or quotations from technical and scientific publications. 2-Statistics should not be so presented so as to imply a greater validity that they really have. 3-Scientific terms should not be misused; scientific jargon and irrelevancies should not be used to make claims appear to have any scientific basis which they do not possess. I would like to emphasize the important status of advertising in our society. Advertising helps us to orient among the wide range of products. On the other hand they use unethical practices, such as telemarketing companies who call random people and try to sell their products by using any methods. Nowadays people have to be extremely prudent when they sign anything and read everything carefully. Advertisement is everywhere.

Title: Dr's role in the rising prescription drug abuse Content: Before I begin, please allow me to clarify that I sympathise with the plight of my opponent's family member, and that I am equally angry at the poor conduct of her doctor. However, this will not affect the way I approach the resolution. As my opponent has not proposed a formal resolution in the form of a declarative statement, I will take the topic sentence of his paragraph as the resolution:The rise in prescription drug abuse should fall into the hands of the Dr. Thus the burden of proof is on my honourable opponent to prove that doctors have to bear the greatest responsibility in the rise in prescription drug abuse. As my opponent has not delineated a set of rules for the debate, I will take the liberty of presenting my opening arguments and refuting some of the arguments my opponent has presented. I will welcome any attempts to present and clarify the rules of this debate by my opponent, for (s)he is the instigator. Constructive arguments1) Doctors are not responsible for the underlying causes of drug abuseThe motives behind prescription drug abuse can generally be summarised thus: (1) To feel good or 'high', and experience the metal effects of the drug To relax or relief pressure To reduce appetite, boost vigilance or improve academic performance As a result of addiction To 'fit in' Even if doctors did not misprescribe, as long as these motives exist, there would always be ways for drug abusers to obtain drugs, such as by receiving drugs from those who have not fully used their medication during previous treatment processes. Conversely, without such motives, there would be no incentive for drug abusers to abuse drugs, even if there were doctors prescribing drugs improperly. This shows that doctors should not be held responsible for drug abuse itself, which should be blamed on the abusers. The rise in drug abuse should be attributed to reasons why more people are having such motivations, and not to the doctors who are simply doing their job by prescribing drugs. 2) Doctors are not responsible for the availability of drugs to abusers. The majority of teenagers who abuse prescription drugs get their drugs from relatives or friends who have been prescribed the drugs; thus doctors did not prescribe any drugs to them. (2) Thus doctors are not responsible for the fact that they have these drugs at their disposal. Even in the event where the abuser was prescribed the medicine and decided to over-dose or to use the drugs for other purposes (such as 'getting high'), the doctors have only prescribed drug according to the patient's needs: if those drugs had been taken exactly as prescribed, there would be no quantity of medicine available for future abuse. Therefore, they should not be held responsible for the availability of excess medicine, which ought to be the fault of the patients who did not take drugs according to doctors' instructions. Rebuttals 1) Explanation at the beginning'So, they see their health care provider, after the pain contract is signed by both patient and Dr, and are prescribed many forms of narcotics and I am baffled at how, Dr's cannot figure out why narcotics abuse continues to rise. 'My opponent states, at the beginning of the paragraph, that the prescription of narcotics by doctors causes the rise in prescription drug abuse. However, (s)he has not yet given a clear explanation of how this has happened. It appear that (s)he has not explained this causal link clearly. By 'I am baffled at how', (s)he seems to imply that the causal link is obvious and 'goes without saying'; however, I fail to see this relationship. 2) Example of the family member's incidentMy opponent has given a detailed account of the personal experience of a loved one. However, I contend that one isolated example alone cannot prove the resolution, which is on the rise of prescription drug abuse, and implies the rise of drug abuse in society as a whole. To conclude that rampant prescription drug abuse is caused by doctors is, therefore, to over-generalise. Moreover, my opponent has not shown that his or her family member's case was related to drug abuse at all. She did not 'abuse' her drug in any way; she was simply following the prescriptions of a registered doctor, and in fact, she used fewer drugs than needed on some days. This alone is sufficient to prove that she had not abused the drugs. My opponent states that she had become addicted to the narcotics. While this may be true - it may not be, for she has terminated all her uses of narcotics and resolved not to utilise such medicine again - it does not follow that this is a case of drug abuse, which is the action of using drugs one should not be using, or using drugs in excess quantities. Addition is merely a state in which a body has become dependent on a substance or activity, or to be more precise, 'Addiction is a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behavior or substance' (3), and there is no necessary implication that the addict acts on the addiction. ObservationsMy final observation is that even if my opponent can show that this type of misprescription leads to drug abuse, it does not necessarily result in a rise thereof; it is therefore his/her responsibility to show that there has been an increase in misprescriptions which has led to an increase (positive change) in the number of drug abusers. (1) . http://cliniquemedecine.com...(2) . http://www.drugabuse.gov...(3) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) My opponent fails to understand the true rigor required in cost/benefit analysis. More advertising does not necessarily translate into 'a surplus of customers'. First of all, the legalization of all addictive, body-distorting, health-damaging substances is likely to produce enough 'advertising' on its own, through the mass media (PR, news, blogs, etc). Therefore, any additional advertising expenditures are unlikely to produce many new incremental 'customers'. This additional spending would simply be wasted. But this is aside from the point. The point is that we do not know, or have any actual idea, of the amount of revenues that could be gained from legalizing these substances. My opponent's guess is as good as my own. With that in mind, choosing to take an action regarding changing the current status quo, when that action will produce unknown or questionable results, is a suboptimal decision. The reason is simple. Unless the current situation is proven to be suboptimal relative to ANY other situation, change simply throws risk into the equation. Risk immediately lowers the trade-off value of the 'new' situation. 1b) Regulation would not be easier, because currently, there is no regulation. A new unit would have to be created and funded. This means IMMEDIATE sunk costs for the government, as there would be no revenues coming in at the time of creation. Not only that, officers would have to be trained. Pharmacies would have to implement new reporting mechanisms. Everything would have to be tracked. These are all real costs. 2a) I refer to criminals with prior records. There would obviously be no records for people who hadn't been caught in the first place. But even for these people...they are not trained members of the work force. Two problems arise out of this. (1) There will be an influx of people into the workforce. Considering the current economy, this wouldn't help the unemployment situation. (2) My opponent suggests making it easier for criminals to enter the workforce. Companies have restrictions against allowing criminals into the workforce because they don't want them there. My opponent proposes providing amnesty to these people as a way of 'tricking' companies into hiring these people. These companies are likely to oppose such a measure. If it did somehow pass, they would likely sue the government. This comprises ANOTHER cost of legalization. 2b) So police now have the right to regularly search your home. This would add even more to the overall costs of legalization, from 2 perspectives. (1) Training and hiring more cops to search homes. (2) People suing the government for invasion of privacy. My opponent proposes the removal of personal rights so that it can collect potential (POTENTIAL) tax revenues. In addition, people who are addicted to addictive substances will likely find ways to purchase these addictive substances, considering the substances are addictive. If they reach their limits with regards to what quantities they can purchase, they will then return to the black market to purchase more. And how do we arrive at these limits? Just arbitrary figures? According to modern medicine, the limits should be 0. As for the tax link, that is a biased article. In addition, it supports a flat sales tax, which is a totally different topic altogether. Firstly, my opponent should read Freakonomics, or anything else that examines drug dealer incomes. The large majority of drug dealers do not make much more than the poorest of legally employed citizens. The ones that do, that also live in the US, are likely to be paying sales taxes already. My opponent has completely ignored the potential costs, both financial and otherwise, of total drug legalization. He assumes that tax revenues would be ample enough to cover these costs, but he has no strong data on the revenues OR the costs. There is no proof that government income would SKYROCKET. In fact, it is very possible that the opposite would occur. But my opponent is 'willing to take this risk', with no data to support him. The crime rate would actually probably increase, per my previous arguments. And from using intuition, reading the news, and experiencing the government in general, most people could safely assume that any problems would definitely not be 'solved fairly quickly'.

Title: All store should stop selling drugs. Content: Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.

Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: Thanks for debating with me. I don't see anything wrong misleading about advertising something but selling something different like candy and cigarettes. They are sold in every supermarket, numerous shops, and even petrol stations, and are a common product. There is no reason whatsoever to assume those produts are healthy. Parents, doctors, teachers etc will tell you they aren't healthy.

Title: In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public Content: The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the "ill-informed" pubic.

Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea. [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011

Title: Drug Legalization Content: So you want to argue agains the FDA? Great. Are you aware that the FDA manages the many medicines given to children? After all, children also require medicine just as much as adults do. Now, let us pose a hypothetical situation where the FDA was non-existant. The over the counter drugs, now contain harmful substances. Now, one specific spray-on drug, contains DDT, a substance which is known to cause cancer. The item in question, has its ingredients labeled, however, according to FDA standards, a drug must also label its possible side effects as well as banning those drugs which has more harmful results than good results(1). .. Woops! The FDA doesnt exist. Congratulations. Youve flooded the market with a drug that does more harm than good. This is what you fail to understand. The FDA doesnt exist to only ban drugs that have some harmful side effects. After all, ANY drug can have harmful side effects. However, the FDA exists to protect the population, a population which is ignorant of terms such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane or arsenic. This is why the specific process of the FDA, is to first, legalize a drug for prescription purposes only, so that DOCTORS with medical degrees who understand the terminology, and side effects, can hand out these drugs to the patients who are both required, and who are suitable to receive these drugs. The FDA also PREVENTS these drugs that have MORE harm than benefits, from reaching the population in the first place. It is too late for a drug company to be indited for fraud and mislabeling, if the product has already reached a million people. Your position is absurd. By arguing against the FDA, you have essentially made every drug, an over the counter drug. If the general public was educated enough to understand the risks involved, as well as to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harm, then we wouldnt need doctors anymore. It is their own choice. However, there is a difference between choice, and an INFORMED consent. 1. ". .. .it would have a label that says, "Warning: Causes Brain Damage. ""-You Sorry. The FDA is the regulatory committee which has placed statutes as to what a label should include. (2) In other words, the FDA will only approve a drug, after studying both the clinical trials, and the proposed warning label on the Drug. If the drug does not have sufficient warnings, or fails to warn a potential hazard, the drug is pulled and the FDA bans it until it is fixed. ". .. it would say, "Warning: Untested. ""-You Again, sorry. The FDA regulates what is placed on a label. Without it, it is up to the discretion of the Drug company whether to warn the user. There is nothing to stop the company from lying. Nor is there a reason to ban the drug if the drug blatantly lied, according to your view of not banning any drugs. Sure, the company could possibly receive a penalty or a fine. But the drugs would stay nonetheless. If the public is lucky, this will become a scandal, and people will know about the drug, atleast those who are smart enough to watch the news. If not, millions of people will continue to use the drug. "So, as long as the drugs are required to have labels that warn potential users of their ingredients and effects, or contain links to websites on which even more information can be obtained, why should it be illegal? "-You First, several combinations of drugs can be harmful. However, most of these drugs which are harmful if taken together with another, are prescription drugs. Therefore, only a doctor understands the risks. However, if we make them all over-the-counter drugs, then there is no way for the general public to understand what combination of drugs are harmful. This is also why not many drugs have the lethal combinations written on the label, because there are just too many to list. Second, not everyone has an internet. Not everyone uses the internet. Not everyone has the time to look up every drug combination and its alternative names. Not everyone reads the label. If Nyquill suddenly placed a harmful agent into its liquid gel caps, how many people do you think, will take the time to read the "Warning, may cause severe drowsiness, stomach pain, headache, and potential cancer"? Hell, Ive never read the warning on my Advil bottle. 2. "if they want to destroy their own lives, they can just go ahead. "-You Awesome. So you dont care about the homeless, the druggies, and rehab centres and all that? Clearly youve never had a family member who was a drug addict. "Plus, it only speeds up natural selection"-you Natural Selection is a process which is governed by the environment. By this logic, we should kill off all disabled people, as they are of no use to the society and hinder us. You know nothing of Evolution and Biology, so dont try and comment on it. I cant believe youre making the following argument. "the smart people will live, and the dumb people will die. "-You Congratulations. Now youve lost. First off, Suicide is not a trait that is inhereted. And neither is stupidity. Einsteins children are not Nobel prize winners. So, your absurd notion that allowing these people to die, is for the benefit of mankind, will do nothing to eliminate this "trait" from the gene pool. Again, you know nothing of evolution. Secondly, not everyone has the benefit of higher education. Not everyone has the benefit of knowledge. And not everyone knows they are taking drugs when given to them. Your "live and let die" approach will be throwing these people to the graves. 3. Congratulations. What you are asking is banning drugs. Therefore, our discussion is over. Youve just admitted that we need to ban drugs if they produce harm to other people. This is basically your argument. And congratulations, that is the EXACT reason why we ban drugs. We ban them because of their ability to harm NOT ONLY the user, but also the people around them. (3) This is the point about drugs. While you are taking them, you are not lucid. Therefore, you might walk outside, beleive that the old lady accross the street is a demon, and kill her. Unless you have a room that has no windows, and have it locked from the outside, could you possibly be sure that you will not harm anyone. As for my opponents arguments: 1. Yes, i agree that anyone who wants to do whatever to their body, is allowed to. I agree that someone has the right to kill themselves. But guess what? It is illegal to suicide by jumping off a tower. The reason being, you are not only harming yourself, but you are also potentially harming others. By jumping off the tower, you might land on someone else, killing them along with you. This is the exact reason why drugs are banned. Its your own choice to destroy your body. But it is not your choice to harm others in the process. We have tons of instances were people who are under the influence of drugs, do things like rape, walk around naked, and kill other people. And all it takes is a little dose. This is different than things like alchohol, as Alchohol is not nearly as addictive as cocaine, bars can actually refuse to sell you alchohol if they believe you to be intoxicated, and being high completely changes your personality to the point that you believe you are the terminator, Sent back in time from the future. (4) Ive never seen a person get so drunk that he believes he is a fictional character from a movie. And by believe, i mean TRULY believe. So in other words, yes, he is doing anything bad, because he is placing nearby people at risk, at severe risk. Sources: 1. . http://www.fda.gov... 2. . http://www.cancer.org... 3. . http://www.newsday.com... 4. . http://uk.movies.yahoo.com...

Title: The Importance of Advertisement Content: I accept your challenge. Welcome to debate.org! This is only my second debate here, so we're both fairly new to this. Thank you for posting this debate, and good luck to you!Two questions:Would I be correct in assuming that we will be disregarding semantic arguments?Am I correct in assuming that my goal is to prove that advertising is only important for unnecessary things? If you could, so my questions don't make you waste characters in your initial argument, please post your answers to my questions in the comments section. I wouldn't want to limit the space you have to make your argument with initial questions like these. Thank you, and again, good luck!

Title: Advertising: Manipulation or Information Content: My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments. I have shown that advertising has many useful purposes such as providing information about goods in the marketplace or PSAs that give us information for the public good.

Title: produce high quality generic drugs for Africa Content: Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers

Title: The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2 Content: Where pro states "Relative (Framing) -- The word "relative" in the debate title defines as "Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world. " "New" may be ambiguous in the pharmaceutical world. I ask to strike that word alone, and if necessary further define in context of the debate.

Title: The malicious and misleading advertisements of today Content: cost of the advertisement is not the primary concern for a company if it is compared with total expenditure on product if advertisement cost is taken as a whole then per unit cost will slightly increase so it's better and beneficial to aware the whole populace by awaring them ......a product's advertisement does not only decides the selling of products it only awares the people......if you are saying that effect on young minds then it is totally wrong and most of the big brands do advertisement if the product is of really quality ...just like for sachine advertises for boost and amitabh chyavanprash....regarding your third point it is not always that we can have available the fresh foods and vegetables so it's the only way....and most of the farthest areas is availed by it ...but the adverse effect of dry is not popularly known to me...regarding alchohals cigerette it gives a large revenue to our government so thats why it is not stopping ......misconceptions about products and transparency regarding product will not remains in a black box it'll come out with a speedy respond by contumer .it'll not decieve people at all ..if there will be any disastrous problem then one product is launched by permission of government then there will be an action.........

Title: Drug Commercials Content: There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.

Title: That we should not target children in advertisements Content: Thank you. First of all, we have agreement. Advertising may lead to consumerism, which is bad. There's no debate on this point. However, my argument that we should let children to get exposed to advertising, is for one thing; education and prevention. The best solution is (obviously is) to avoid advertisement at any cost. However, this is impossible. The reason is because due to modernization and globalization, we're constantly exposed to entertainment, including advertisement. My argument is: With the help of parents (and government), we should expose children to advertisement, so they're immune to the bad thing. Here's what I'm trying to say. An example will help: We're born as weak baby right? Since we're baby, we're given immunization. Those liquid that's injected to our body contains virus. The target of immunization is so our immune will grow up and defeat the virus. After this process of immunization, our body is immune to this disease. That's why nobody got Polio on later age like back in the 40s , due to this immunization. The same logic applies to advertising. With advertising exposed to our kid, bad things will be exposed to our kid, but with morale lesson given to our kids by our parents about bad effect of advertising, our kid is immune to the bad things such as consumerism. I'm not going to explain and debate of which parenting method is the best, since it's out of scope. Advertising is unavoidable, but once in our life, we must face bad things, so we learn from it and then avoid it and "immune" to it. You cannot learn which is bad and which is good, if we don't know which one is. How a kid will tell something is bad if they're not exposed to it. Parents are important in this education process. I'd like to restate this point. I like to make "pressure point" that exposed doesn't have to mean they have to do it. So if I say someone is exposed with drugs, it doesn't mean that guy uses drugs. It's just he know what is drugs.

Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: 1. IntroductionIn today’s world, medicines have literally become part of our daily lives. Due to the push of supply and the pull of demand, researchers and public health organisation alike classify more and more common conditions as “diseases”, as the population is ready to take any type of medicines for their cure from these conditions. Improvements in the field of medicine are taking place and extensive research being conducted. The topic of the debate is “Medicines Should Be Made Free”, therefore, the burden of Pro is to show that medicines should be made free at any cost, as “should” is a synonym for ‘duty’ or ’ absolute necessity’, whereas, the burden of Con is to show that it is not "absolute necessity” and to highlight the appalling consequences if such actions were to take place. The whole argument is about whether or not customers like you and me should pay for the medicines we get. The argument that "medicines should be given free" is unsustainable and are utopian dreams of a pied piper.2. ResearchThe Pharmaceutical industry is constantly in the search for new and better therapies, and have developed various molecules that has revolutionised modern medicine. The Pharmaceutical industry is one of the most innovative industries in the world today. Pharmaceutical organisations play a pivotal role in promoting the field of research, especially during the outbreaks of deadly epidemics like Ebola, H1N1 etc. One of the major factors that plays an important role in promoting research is money. Money is crucial in this field, as it is in almost any conceivable venture. It is pertinent to note the words of Chancellor of USFC, that the cost of developing new drugs is simply “crazy”; because if a country needs to sell at least one drug in the market, the funds required are upwards of 350-400 million dollars. She says that the “Pharmaceutical industry is not one where anybody can make profits”. It requires major funding, patience and loads of luck to hit upon an efficacious drug.Then where does one expect to fund the pharmaceutical industry? Two common sources are the donors (NGOs) and the customers (pull of demand by the end users). If the pull of demand is cut off by the seemingly ideal plan of doling out medicines free, the research efforts of Pharmaceutical companies is sure to falter. We can’t expect donors to keep paying tons of cash for the Pharmaceutical industry. There is a limit for anything that comes free. Or have'nt we heard the saying "There is nothing called free lunch!!"Therefore, without adequate compensation by the end users, it neither probable for good vaccinations, drugs and other medicines to be created nor improvisations possible. So, making medicines free is suicidal to both the population and the pharmaceutical industry. Sources:http://www.forbes.com...http://phprimer.afmc.ca...

Title: Wastage Content: Because so many people either only have to pay the prescription charge, or in many cases no charge at all for their drugs, the NHS wastes £100m each year on drugs that go in the bin. Doctors should only prescribe drugs when people have serious ailments and the prescription charges should actually be much higher for single treatments meaning people who have chronic conditions can pay less. Basically we're dishing out a whole bunch of subsidised analgesics and anti-histamines that end up in the bin while people cannot get live-saving/prolonging treatments for their cancer.

Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.

Title: Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better pro... Content: If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.

Title: Small businesses need advertisements to make their products known. Content: If there wasn't advertising then small businesses would have no chance at all to make their product well known. Adverts can actually level the playing field - if you have a good new product, and market it in a clever way then it doesn't matter how small your company is, you can still make consumers interested. The more you restrict the freedom of information, the more this helps the large companies who everyone already knows about.

Title: Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products Content: I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body

Title: Restrictions reach out to the general population Content: How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this

Title: The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system Content: According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products. [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011

Title: universal health care Content: "The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug." Useless argument. Patients aren't the ones writing the prescriptions, doctors and other health care professionals are. A similar survey with doctors will reveal that a great percentage of doctors will be familiar with LDN and its efficacy. Please do not forget that doctors themselves do not get any money from prescribing one drug over another, so prescribing LDN off-label will be fine. "You said that it would take "billions of billions of dollars" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so." I apologize and retract my statement, replacing it with the term "billions of dollars". "If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue." I'm glad you understand my point. Are you then aware that the reason drug companies have money to make new drugs is that we pit drug companies against each other and let the free market boost our economy? Implementing universal health care would decrease cash movement, and make us LOSE money. I am glad you concede this point. "The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE." Wrong. Your view is naive, unfounded, and contradicts the practices of drug companies and economics. Private drug companies research medication based on profit. Our economy is mainly capitalistic, profit drives businesses in order to satisfy the public. You are WRONG in saying that drug companies research in order to save lives. They do it to make profit. If there was no profit, private drug companies will no longer research drugs and only government sponsored facilities will research drugs. This makes things much less efficient and will make things much more expensive. Taxes will have to be raised enormously in order to research just a few drugs. Please understand our economic system and that our country does not work on the ideals you just stated. Yes, it would be nice if it worked out the way you said, but it doesn't. That's called socialism. And it never works. "One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE." Medicare. Medicaid. Besides, people aren't being denied the right to live. To say so is a gross exaggeration and makes you seem overly emotional and biased about this debate. Health care is expensive. Insurance makes it cheaper. You obviously have no idea of the economic repercussions of universal health care. I will clarify this in my concluding statements. "The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK." Incorrect. Money does matter because it is how it will be done. For a person who gets sick 3-4 times a year, it will be extremely unfair for him to pay thousands of dollars extra in order to provide a person on welfare and unemployment enough money to get prescriptions filled. We don't live in fairy-land. Money runs this country and doesn't pop out of thin air. You propose a lot of good things but they aren't realistic. *********** My opponents points have all been invalidated. He proposes nothing new in his concluding remarks and has failed to respond to all the points I have made about universal health care being detrimental to the welfare of this country. I will now restate them: "Drug companies use the profits to research more drugs. After selling one medication, they use the profits to pay their researchers and scientists to come up with more drugs to make more money and the cycle keeps going. The U.S. churns out new medicines because drug companies keep competing with each other over profits. New drugs = big profits, that's why they keep churning out new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world! With universal health care here, drug companies would stop competing with each other because prices would be regulated too heavily. What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it? So if we implement universal health care, it's bad for everyone in the long run." I combine this previous argument with my new explanation of economics in general, which my opponent severely lacks understanding of. My opponent makes a grandiose speech about how we should not worry about money, that "that's what taxes are for", that life should come before everything. He portrays himself as a valiant crusader for the poor, and I applaud him for his noble aspirations. However, REALISTICALLY, universal health care will be terrible in the long run. Setting aside how universal health care will decimate the drug economy, it will also put great strain on the citizens. Welfare, unemployment, medicaid, these things all benefit those that do not deserve it. The tax dollars of hardworking, productive members of society are being drained towards these people. It is forced charity. However, it's not that bad. People do have some right to life, because they may hit on hard times. Universal health care would more than double the amount of money being taken out of the pockets of the middle class, to benefit the feeders at the bottom. Most people only get sick a few times a year, why should they have to pay thousands of dollars to the poor lower class? It may be "mean" or "inhumane" of me to say these things, but it certainly isn't fair, or just. The middle class suffers too. In addition to being ridiculously unjust to the population, universal health care would shut down the economy. No more competition, no more insurance companies, this would cause stagnation in a major part of our service-oriented economy. Since my opponent has made not a single argument for universal health care, I rest my case.

Title: Address real issues Content: We do need to address these underlying causes, however this is not by legalising drugs- that is not helping to find out what drove the people to take drugs in the first place, it encourages their addiction; their sickness. We should develop better healthcare or stronger societies to reach out personally to these people and offer free consultations and counselling to help them back on their feet. Advertise, do what it takes, to make the new system well known and make people want to help themselves.

Title: advertising is harmful Content: Advertisements promote healthy products and lifestyles.

Title: Health care is a human right Content: Alright. Let's say that Universal Health care becomes a right today. What's going to happen next? Let's look at the medical industry, And how it works. More specifically, Let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. The pharma companies are mostly in charge of providing new medications. How do they do that? Through Research and Development. The pharma companies are currently researching new medications that could help the average person, Like you and me. But these "new" medications aren't cheap, As you and I know. That's why generic medications exist: same effects as the brand name medication, But at a lower cost. How do generic brands exist? Through the free market. The free market dictates what they want, And if there is a good chunk of people who want to pay less for the same brand name medication, Then the free market creates an opportunity for that to happen. Now what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? Actually, Before I get into that, I am going to explain why pharma companies have incentive to create new medication. These pharma companies mainly appeal to hospitals because since people go to hospitals for basically everything from ER operations to getting a check-up, They know consumers who go to hospitals will most likely pay for more expensive medication, Which are the brand-name medication. But the generic medication exist so that retail clinics can create lower prices for non-emergency causes, Like if you have the cold or the flu. Mind you, I am not saying that the cold or the flu are not important to treat, But I am saying that they are less important than, Say, Someone with a broken leg or someone who got a heart attack. These retail clinics, Given enough legal headroom to operate so long as they have professionally licensed doctors, Can create relatively dirt-cheap prices for the middle class, And in some cases, Even the poor people. What am I saying? I am saying that If the free market is allowed enough room to open more retail clinics and allow these retail clinics to compete with each other, They can actually help more people while operating more efficiently and having lower prices. Now, That doesn't mean we should get rid of hospitals. Hospitals are great for emergency operations and urgent care. But for everything else, Retail clinics are the preferred method of treatment due to lower prices. Now, Back to the question: what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? What happens is that these big pharma companies don't have incentive to create new medications because they have no competition. Without generic brands, Big pharma sees the opportunity to significantly slow down progress on new, High end medication while increasing the price of currently available medication. "So, Why don't we regulate the prices? " you might be asking. Let me tell you why: Once you start implementing price control, Especially to the medical industry, These already existing medications become absurdly scarce to the point where it's nearly impossible to get the medication you need without waiting in line for hours on end. You know what else makes you wait for ours on end because of a scarce item? Rationing. Eventually, We will reach the point where we say "there aren't enough medications for everyone. Let's ration. ", And we start restricting the amount of medications one can get. These big pharma companies will see that governments are controlling how much a person can get of a medication, And these pharma companies not only lose incentive to create new medications, But also lose incentive to keep a sustainable production rate. Why? Because when you ration something, Production of said rationed item will have more supply than there is demand, And that cost these companies a lot of money. So to alleviate this issue, The pharma companies slow down production to the point where there is now more demand than supply. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Due to their leader giving free medication, People wait in lines for hours on end, Hoping to get their ration of medications they need, Only to be greeted with a "We just ran out of medications to give out. Try coming back tomorrow. " Not only does this screw over the people we waited hours on end only to not get what they absolutely need, But it also creates a bigger health crisis than there needed to be. More people get sick due to scarcity of medications, And we eventually start to see all but the very elite who can afford to pay for the importation of medication die. All because we made health care a right. Let's step back for a moment and see what went wrong. By making health care a right, You just eliminated the free market that allowed for most people to afford medication. By eliminating the free market, You created an endless cycle of expensive and scarce medications that will only get worse as time goes on. That is why health care is not and should not be a right. By making it a right, You mess with the absolute fundamentals of the medical industry, Thus causing this endless cycle of scarcity we see right now in Venezuela.

Title: Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist Content: My opponent has forfeited. The resolution remains unaffirmed, and my opponent has not shown that promotional diet advertisements should not exist.

Title: The FDA Does More Harm Than Good Content: I will respond to each of Con's rebuttals. 1. That earlier attempts at prohibiting alcohol failed doesn't change the fact that the FDA allows you to use these dangerous substances while restricting access to widely used, low-risk medicines, like antibiotics. Here's another example for a non-recreational drug: Tylenol is available over the counter and yet it is quite easy to overdose on it, which can cause deadly liver failure. Why can you buy Tylenol without a prescription, but you can't get an antibiotic for your throat infection without spending time and money visiting a doctor? http://1.usa.gov... 2. "If the FDA feels that something should be taken off the market, inspected, and then re-approved to be out on the market to protect consumers than there is nothing wrong with that." I don't think the manufacturers of these drugs, who have been doing so safely for decades, or the people who would rather buy these drugs for much less then the 'approved' prescription versions, feel that there is 'nothing wrong with that.' And if Con is worried about bias, perhaps he shouldn't cite the FDA's explanation of why it's necessary to support his pro-FDA argument. As for dietary supplements, I never said that they couldn't be dangerous. Too much of anything is dangerous. However, Con's references prove that the FDA needn't get involved in the regulation of dietary supplements- both media outlets and research groups such as Consumer Reports have done a fine job of letting people know that they should take care when taking dietary supplements. Con's definition of 'drug' is, in fact, the government's definition of a drug (from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). And unsurprisingly, it is so vague as to put anything that you consume regarding your health under the jurisdiction of the government. It's also unsurprising that the FDA would attempt to regulate Cheerios because the box claimed that eating them was 'clinically proven to reduce cholesterol.' It is by the nature of the food that Cheerios was touted to be healthy, not because it was altering a chemical process in your body like a pharmaceutical drug. As such, General Mills was not attempting to defraud or otherwise trick people into buying their product because of its claim to reduce cholesterol. http://1.usa.gov... The FDA asserted that "these claims indicate that Cheeriosï¿½ is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." Any rational person can tell that Cheerios was NOT intended by General Mills to be ‘used for lowing cholesterol,' but that by consuming Cheerios as food, you may also enjoy some health benefits. Therefore the FDA's actions here cannot be defended as being for the public good, as there was no evidence the General Mills was being fraudulent, nor was there evidence that the offending labeling put anybody in danger. It is much more likely that, given the evidence of FDA corruption cited in my second round, drug companies and not consumers had something to lose while these cholesterol claims were on the Cheerios box. If a doctor gives a patient the option to change their diet or go on medication, they may be more inclined to change their diet, knowing foods like Cheerios can help reduce their cholesterol, rather than solicit the drug companies. Regarding example 4, the article isn't 'biased' as much as it's simply explaining how the FDA allowed drugs that were known to cause dangerous side-effects to be on the market, while not allowing alternatives that had been proven to be effective and safe to be sold. The conclusion is that the FDA's actions have led to needless deaths, which is reflected in the title. 3. I never argued that the FDA is harmful because it's not perfect. People make mistakes. However, it has been slow to remove some dangerous drugs from the market, such as Rofecoxib (Vioxx), as referenced in round 2, point 3, examples 2 and 4. Since the FDA controls what drugs are allowed to be sold, it must be trusted as the authoritative source for ‘safe' drugs. But its conflicts of interest (see round 2, point 2), questionable safety record (see point 3), and lack of competitors make it a less than ideal authority. Here is a link to an interview with Dr. David Graham, a longtime member of the FDA, who called out the FDA on the Vioxx debacle. In it he explains how the FDA protects the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of patient safety and the multitude of conflicts of interest that cloud the agency's judgment. http://www.naturalnews.com... 4. Con asserts "…companies must go through far more vigorous experimentation to ensure that whatever drug they are manufacturing is up to date with safety codes, because if it isnt a couple thousand dollars saved on a drug could end up as a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company." This sounds like a pretty big incentive for drug companies make sure their drugs are safe, regardless of what FDA regulations mandate. As it is, FDA's ever-increasing list of demands have increased the cost of developing new drugs without a comparable increase in patient safety. Of the 33 drugs on the following list of drugs recalled by the FDA since 1980, 21 of them had been approved since 1990. (I'll link the list again) http://bit.ly... Another thing to think about is that the big pharmaceutical companies can afford to pay for the costs of approving new drugs, while small laboratories are much less able to do so. In addition, because the FDA is the sole determiner of what drugs are legal to sell, any increases in development costs go directly to the consumer and are industry-wide. This creates a cartel-like situation for the big drug companies, since they can charge more and more for their drugs and they don't have to worry about low-cost alternatives. In conclusion: yes, the FDA's control of the drug market allows for a semi-independent judge of which drugs are safe and which are not, and its actions may have been helpful in some cases. However, the Con's assertion that drugs and medical equipment "would not go through any kind of inspection or testing and corporations would begin to market just about anything to make a quick buck while consumers pay the price" is unfounded. Would you go buy medicine that wasn't approved by anybody except the company that manufactured it and had no history of safe use? Of course not. Consumers want to be as sure as possible that the drugs they take are safe, and consumer safety laboratories could sufficiently perform that task more objectively and less expensively then the FDA. By having competition between ‘drug safety' laboratories (see my final link in round 2), they would be very careful to ensure the safety of the drugs they inspect. Something akin to the Vioxx incident in the FDA would spell bad news for that 'safety' laboratory, where the FDA, a monopoly, can continue, unchanged. Drug companies would be more than willing to submit their drugs for testing, since an unapproved drug would find few buyers in the market. The FDA's total control of the drug market breeds corruption and has led to the highest-priced prescription market in the world. http://bit.ly... It has limited patients' access to safe and effective treatments while allowing dangerous prescriptions to be sold. It can pick and choose what drugs require prescriptions and which don't, with these decisions reflecting little on the danger of the drug (Alcohol, Tobacco, & OTC Tylenol vs. Prescription Amoxacillin). It restricts the rights of patients to use whatever treatments they and their doctor deem appropriate, such as experimental treatments for a terminal condition. For these reasons and more, the FDA does more harm than good, and patients would not only be just as safe with private laboratories doing the safety testing, but would have more and lower-cost treatment options.

Title: The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers Content: It is difficult to see how this advertising is better for business overall. The consumer still has the same amount of money so will overall still spend the same amount. They may spend it on different things as a result of more targeted advertising, assuming that the consumer is not alienated by the personalised advertising, but is that a benefit? Moreover even if companies are successful in advertising their wares more effectively to their customers, it does not change the fundamental violation of privacy upon which such advertising relies. The norm of selling personal data is hugely dangerous to engender in society, as it produces more and more a sense of entitlement to others’ personal lives.

Title: Advertising: Manipulation or Information Content: The case for advertising To cast dispersion on such a broad swathe of industry is astounding. Advertising is clearly information and not manipulation. Let's look at two categories of advertising that serve the public good: 1. Public Service Announcements (PSA) PSA's can be used to inform, educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues, such as HIV/AIDS, political ideology, energy conservation and deforestation. David Ogilvy once said, "Advertising justifies its existence when used in the public interest—it is much too powerful a tool to use solely for commercial purposes." Perhaps, the most remembered is the Smokey Bear commercials with Smokey saying, "Only you can prevent forest fires". There's hardly an adult alive in the US today who does not remember that saying when camping. Countless forest fires have probably been saved through the use of PSA advertising. 2. Political Advertisements Everyone knows who the two major candidates for US president are but what about Governor or State treasurer? The sad reality is the lesser known candidates don't have a chance to get their message out for free like major ones do. These unknowns pay for advertising which helps level the playing field somewhat. It would be a sad day when the public only got to hear from the rich parties such as Democrats and Republicans. Political advertisements serve a useful purpose to get information out to the masses. So, clearly advertising need not be even commercial in nature, so pro's premise #2 is false. But even when advertising is commercial in nature it's not manipulation. Think if you're a small business owner, say a bike shop, how would anyone know your location that didn't live in the immediate area? They wouldn't. Businesses need to reach outside their small neighborhood to be successful. Nobody's twisting arms saying you have to buy. They're just saying look here we are, here's what we have. That's the way it's been for thousands of years and businesses will continue to offer us the goods that we want. And we'll know about it through advertising.

Title: Drugs will either be too cheap or too expensive Content: Low prices for drugs will hugely increase consumption of drugs, amongst all groups - addicts, previously casual users, and those who were not previously users. If drug provision is strictly regulated, an illegal black market may remain.

Title: Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses Content: Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.

Title: ADHD Medication Should Require A Brain Scan For Diagnosis Content: I disagree because if this happens depression rates will increase in the country even more as everyone uses depression as a way to get free pills from the NHS. This is a bad thing because if say claiming to be depressed was the only way to get free pills it would soon be stopped for those who really need it. An argument to this cannot be, it doesn't matter because people should not do it, because people always will. I think people should be tested to see if they are taking medication.

Title: It is unfair to tax one product differently than another. Content: Taxing one product, such as recreational drugs, differently than another product, such as prescription drugs, places an unfair burden on one segment of consumers. It could be claimed that drug users have the right to not pay the tax simply by not purchasing the drugs, but this gets away from the fact that citizens should be treated equally under the law. People have the right to choose what they consume. The use of taxes to control behaviour is wrong and it is not the role of the government to decide how its citizens should behave. It is for the citizens to decide what acceptable behaviour is and for the government to implement those limitations while also not restricting basic rights. It is also important to note that imbalanced taxes show favouritism to one segment of producers vs. another. Naturally, people favour less expensive products over more expensive ones, which means that government can create unnatural market conditions that favour products that are taxed less.

Title: drugs should not be banned Content: My opponent should’ve elaborated a bit more on his opening statement. What kind of drugs? Some drugs are legal and others are illegal.Prescription drugs are medicine supplied by your doctors under strict conditions. These drugs are given to their patients with specific instructions, and therefore, you must not overdose. - Any medicine can be classed as a ‘drug’, which eliminates the idea for it to get ’banned’ or terminated from supplying. A drug which isn’t a medicine, such as: Cocaine, cannabis, heroin etc, must be banned regardless of someone’s freedom to excessively use them. These drugs are of course illegal & must stay that way for a number of reason. Thinking independently for your own sake is a huge mistake on the issue of ‘drugs’. Your idea is to legalise drugs, so that everyone can freely use it in order to taste ‘freedom’, which could eventually kill them. Well, here’s the problem:People, on a national stage would cause chaos all over the globe. It would make the riots that recently occurred in London, look like a friendly playground. Students would be behaving in a disrespectful manner, causing teacher’s freedom to diminish, and their will to teach. The markets would collapse, bringing the economy down by 60 - 80 percent as people would start looting. Most drugs reduces a person’s ability to think & remember things due to brain cell damage. As a result, we would not be able progress in the near future educationally, technologically, mentally or physically.

Title: Advertisements do more harm than good Content: thank you very good points your first point is irrelevant were are debating if ads to more harm then good, your point explains why we advitisments are needed. my opinion on your second point i agree ads do contribute to the economy, inorder for business to succed in societys attention they need ads. but, nowdays business are brainwashing us with millions of ads. Consumers are exposed to hundreds of commercial messages per day in one form or another -- from the boring, copy-laden radio commercial to the easily skimmed, forgettable newspaper ad, and from the billboard on the side of the bus to the logo on the side of the building. The average American is exposed to 247 commercial messages each day. Consumer Reports Website http://www.consumerreports.org... CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=18759&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=18151 People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses. you last point is confusing in round three could you explain your point please and its relation to the debate topic? thank you

Title: Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices Content: ToTo begin, the list of studies is not misleading. My opponent believes that the studies fail to prove my point because their are "many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse." This would lead one to assume that the United States is the only country that has problems with drug or alcohol abuse, which is not the case. These so-called "factors" are also factors in other nations, meaning my attack on your a priori holds water. By the way, I would like a citation for your comment about the Canadian president using doctors here BECAUSE the particular procedure isn't offered in Canada. To clarify, no I am not advocating a set price for doctor's pay. I am advocating that the individual doctor charge the amount he/she deems adequate and they shouldn't do what all other companies do with prices, which is advertise how low they are and how high other competitors might be. This way doctors are paid what they need to be paid. Some companies like Best Buy price their computers so low in price that they actually lose money on them, but they do it to be competitive. Once doctors start losing money, there goes the quality. Moreover, my opponent mis-quoted me when he claimed that I said the doctors should be paid on their quality of their service when I said "Doctors should be paid for the service they provide, not set prices for each visit" Such as, they should be paid for their time, their assistants time, use of the equipment, and any other overhead. I would now like to address another issue. My opponent has stated that the rich will always get the best doctors, this is true. But there are still good doctors that can treat the middle and lower classes. It is these doctors that I worry about losing. Next - my opponent brings up the point that the medicine is what is most valuable to the patient, and this is true. But I would ask him and all the readers how that medicine is given out. The doctor must prescribe it. I do not limit this to prescription drugs, but also more complicated procedure like surgery and chemotherapy. Tests must be done, numbers crunched, more tests must be done, and then finally the best course of action must be taken. As stated earlier, we want these doctors to prescribe the best course of action not the cheapest. When doctors compete for the bid of the insurance companies, they are essentially owned by those companies. As stated, the company doesn't want the best course of action they want the cheapest and those two things rarely go together. I cite the teenager in California who died when the insurance companies refused to pay for a liver transplant deemed necessary by her doctor's and I encourage everyone to click on the link below and learn more about the reluctance of insurance companies to pay up. http://www.pajamadeen.com... Finally, some more of those statistics my opponent seems to dislike. Keep in mind the previous (and unanswered) quote above were I stated "Evidence suggests that over one third of health care costs goes to unnecessary tests, duplicate tests, unproven experimental procedures, bureaucracy, and overpriced drugs (which I have shown above how companies monopolize new medical breakthroughs.)" While doctors in the United States earn more money than doctors in other nations, they also pay less for other related expenses such as prescription drugs (the latter costing more money than the former) and almost all workers in the U.S. are paid salaries higher than those in other nations. The average doctor makes around $250,000 a year, which is a nice sum of money, but the average CEO and other high ranking executives of a drug companies can make million's more in that same year. I will end with a comparison, that of teachers and schools to that of doctors and medicine. If you want to cut costs in the school in order to better the system and make it more efficient, you do not do that by cutting the salaries of the teachers for performing an invaluable service. Your do things like reduce waste, use both sides of the paper, ect. Same goes for doctors, if you want to cut cost, look at my citation above for the culprits. I would like to make a small comment about my opponents "Value, Value Criterion". Justice is defined as "the moral principle determining just conduct." Looking out for those who need it is just conduct. Furthermore I would contend that my opponents Value criterion does not apply, because even if my proposition isn't upheld (As I mentioned before, doctors do not compete normally as Home Depot and Lowes does they have something called managed competition which is why there are no commercials advertising their low low prices.) The reason for this being the basic principle of supply and demand. Demand comes from the consumer's needs and the supply comes through producer. In the case of medicine the supply and the demand comes from the doctor because the consumer (patient) doesn't know what they usually need, especially in cases of severe diseases like lime disease, diabetes, STDs, cancers, ect. Since one person controls both forces, the free market system does not apply no matter what happens. I hope that I didn't leave any of my opponent's points un-attacked, as he seems to think I have (like he would have actually given me the heads up if it were true). I would like to also apologize to my opponent seeing has he dislikes my long arguments, but that is a small side effect of having facts. http://hypertextbook.com... - doctor salary http://www.forbes.com... - For what they are paying these high rankers. P.S. Citations are a nice touch.

Title: Emergency Contraception Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...

Title: is drug selling is legal or illegal Content: The world of drugs is among the most fascinating in that one never knows what or which drug will create problems for society. About 10% of pharmacies in the United Kingdom have discovered a new way to make money from the drugs they sell to patients"just sell it to patients in other parts of the world! Theoretically, some drugs are only supposed to be sold in the UK, but some pharmacies have uncovered a loophole which allows them to sell to anyone, including people in other nations. Actually, the law says certain drugs should only be sold in Great Britain. For example, a month"s supply of Ferma sells for about $110 in England, but some pharmacies are offering this product abroad for about $150. A woman in Hertfordshire was informed by her druggist that he had no Ferma, then said he could get a few tablets, but the women really could not tell her body to get along with a few rather than the amount required. Ah, the world of drugs and making money.

Title: You cannot own an idea, and thus cannot hold patents, especially to vital drugs Content: Ideas can be owned, to a certain extent. The creative effort involved in the production of a drug formula is every bit as great as the building of a new chair or other tangible asset. Nothing special separates them and law must reflect that. It is a fundamental violation of property rights to steal from drug companies the rights they own to drugs by allowing the production of generic knock-offs. improve this

Title: Net Neutrality Content: You say that we have been unable to regulate businesses in the real world, so why try in the digital? In reality, the two are not parallel. I do indeed realize that advertising is part of the business, and the advantage gained therefrom is exactly what logically follows for having been the first to market. Economic growth is hindered when the rewards for success do not necessarily follow from the success itself, for example, legal smothering, or in this case, the imposition of unreasonable fees to get into an online market. Something like advertising does follow from the success itself, since it is directly related to the product and does not try to seek its own in extracompetitive methods by altering the playing field itself.

Title: End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal. Content: In my opponents argument, he said that although being physically dependent on a drug is bad, it shouldn't be criminalized. This I agree with. No consumer of a drug should be criminalized and it should be considered a medical issue - of addiction and dependence. Those selling, growing and distributing that drug though, should be criminalized. If it were legal, as the proposition says, then it would only take one try of that drug to become addicted - or frequent use will have the same effect. To per-empt, that physical addiction and spare many the painful steps of withdrawal, it should be banned from being sold. Now, my position is that no-one should be criminally prosecuted for taking drugs. Instead they should be offered medical help. For those drugs that are too addictive, it should be stopped from being sold (or at least be changed and regulated to make it less addictive). Think about it this way. If a product doesn't fit with food/drink/drug regulations to make them safer and less addictive, then it can't be sold and is as such "illegal". Why should drugs be any different. If some drugs are too dangerous or addictive and it fails to be regulated to change that, then it shouldn't be sold and should be "illegal". Therefore, to argue that all drugs should be legal to consume, you are therefore arguing that there would be no regulation. If you tried to regulate it, some drugs will still not be allowed to be sold and go into the black-market, making it illegal. For all drugs therefore to be legal all regulation on medical, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs would have to be taken away. Not everything can be legal. Are companies allowed to put anything they want into our food or medical drugs? No, and rightly so. Some drugs and food do not meet our regulations and are illegal. This shouldn't change.

Title: Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease Content: There is little to be said against this particular argument for the banning of fast food advertising. The only conceivable rebuttal that could be brought to bear is that of personal choice and responsibility. The sole purpose of advertising is to convince the individual they have a preference or desire for one product over other available options. It becomes a matter of personal responsibility to either abstain from consuming unhealthy foods or use in moderation. All the health risks listed can be mitigated through self control with regards to frequency and portion sizing combined with a healthy lifestyle including exercise.

Title: Should food Advertisements be targeted at children and teens Content: I accept. This should be interesting, because I actually personally agree with my opponent's position, and I'm passionate on the subject to the point where I wrote a term paper on the topic. I just thought it would be fun to play devil's advocate. I will be offering two major points here. 1. The companies need revenue. 2. Self-control solves the issue. Back to my first point, companies need revenue. As my opponent stated, these companies draw customers in for life when the customers are at a young age. I'll provide some empirical proof [1] for this claim, which I agree with. Now, obviously a customer that has a habit of returning is going to be helping the profit margins of these "junk-food" companies and continue to support the business. This is actually going to flow to my side of the debate, however, because keeping these companies in business is a vital part of economic stimulus. Without the fast-food industry, many jobs would be lost, and customers would be forced to choose between low-quality food at middle-of-the-road prices or high quality, high priced food. It would the pockets of the consumer [2]. Now for the second key point, self-control solves. As my opponent admits, "All you have to do is ignore the ads so you and your children don"t get overweight." Thereby admitting the advertisements aren't too powerful that they overpower our own free will. This means that parents can deny these products to their children and effectively deter the negative health effects that they come with. Thank you. [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com... [2] http://www.qsrmagazine.com...

Title: Buy Accutane 30 mg Online Content: So you're basically saying I should buy a medicine online from a shady website with a ton of side effects to MAKE MY SKIN CLEARER? 1. Why would I risk health issues and overdosing on medicine to get rid of something that is not causing physical harm to me? 2. I can cover up my acne with makeup, And just upkeep my hygiene for free. 3. This is an ad on a debating site. Why are you posting an ad on a debating site? 4. I can go buy some other, Cheaper medication, One that has no side effects, And that I know works/ how it works. 5. You are risking awful side effects and overdosing WITH NO GUARANTEE OF RESULTS. 6. Seriously? Like, Are we gonna do this?

Title: universal health care Content: Pharmacy student here. I have some good news, and some bad news. Naltrexone is a widely accessible medication used for detoxing addicts. Low dose naltrexone is simply Naltrexone at a lower concentration. I am very interested in this usage and I find that your explanation is very fitting. I am glad you decided to enlighten us on such an amazing drug and I do regret that drug companies will refuse to manufacture it. However, there is probably something you don't know. Doctors are allowed to prescribe medications for something called "off label use". I did a quick wikipedia search to verify this and found that doctors are indeed prescribing low dose naltrexone for all the purposes you stated. So yes, people's lives are being saved at a low cost. That was the good news. The bad news is that I just debunked your opening argument! **** The reason I believe universal health care will not work in the U.S. is simple. Countries all over the world have universal health care, and many of our citizens look at the U.S. and cringe. Greedy drug companies don't want universal health care because that would cut their profits. That's bad right? Not really. People say that a pill costs 10 cents to make. That's true. For the second pill. The second, third, fourth, hundredth pill costs 10 cents to make. But the FIRST pill costs BILLIONS of dollars to make! When a new drug is developed, it gets a patent for about 10 years. This allows it to be sold as a product to gain a lot of money. However, it's more like gaining BACK the billions of billions of dollars to research the drug. Drug companies use the profits to research more drugs. After selling one medication, they use the profits to pay their researchers and scientists to come up with more drugs to make more money and the cycle keeps going. The U.S. churns out new medicines because drug companies keep competing with each other over profits. New drugs = big profits, that's why they keep churning out new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world! So a drug company may spend a billion dollars making the drug, but a company in another country can just make that drug for just 10 cents. Countries with universal health insurance can steal our medication ideas. With universal health care here, drug companies would stop competing with each other because prices would be regulated too heavily. What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it? Research between competing drug companies would stop. The only new drugs we would get will be from government labs. And the government won't have enough money to fund science when its pouring all the money into universal health care. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that the other countries won't be able to rely on the U.S. for medications anymore. They won't be able to synthesize the medications we discover. So if we implement universal health care, it's bad for everyone in the long run.

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the United States Content: Whats been great is that we've had an amazing round over a very hot issue, but never once got personal or aggressive. Since this is the last speech I'll just summarize the round. The 5 key arguments in this round are as follows. 1. Will drug use increase or decrease? 2. Do drug users violate the rights of others? 3. Does the War on Drugs fulfill my opponent's burden? 4. Does affirming solve the black market? 5. Do medical benefits outweigh harms? Here's why I believe I win these arguments. 1A: Deterrance My opponent did not address my argument that her own sources are telling you that people are deterred from drug use by criminal sanctions. All she says is that most people aren't deterred. However, "most" does not equal "everyone". So when she argues "most" will still take drugs, she concedes that "some" will not. At that point, since its been proven that drug users cause harm to other people, I win the round because there will be more of these harms occuring when we take that deterrance away. 1B: Availability We have both given examples of drugs being legalized. I gave four, where drug use spiked. She gave three where it did not. Here's why you prefer my examples. In the four examples I gave, two of them involved drugs becoming available to everyone. One legalized them for all adults, and the other was prescription heroin for addicts. Her examples only involve heroin being given to adults who are severe addicts. Look at her sources for these. They specifically tell you that these drugs were only made available for hardcore addicts over a certain age. You cannot draw conclusions from these until these drugs have become available for everyone. But I did offer examples where everyone had access to drugs, and we saw what happened. 2. Do drug users violate other's rights? I have proved that drug users increase our insurance and hospital costs, which equates to taxation without representation (which violates our right to, well, taxation without representation), and that drug users damage their families and injure coworkers at a high rate. Pro has never denied any of these. Her only argument is that obese people increase insurance costs just as often as drug users. Let me go over this quickly. She argues that heart disease causes 35% of deaths. Deaths, not hospital costs. So 1. This is not relevant to my argument. She then says 34% of Americans are overweight. However, she has not given us anything showing how many of those overweight people have heart disease. So she is missing a huge link here, and without it these arguments fall apart. Pro contends that the government cannot be paternalistic and that it can only restrict rights that can harm other people. I have shown that drug users do indeed harm others and violate rights, so by her own logic, we are justified incriminalizing drugs. 3. Does ending the WoD = Legalizing? After proving that ending it does not equate to legalization in my last speech, pro makes an absurd claim that I "would not advocate a WOD". That is completely false. In addition to showing why the WOD is not Aff ground, I then attacked every single argument she made about it anyway. Never in this entire debate have I said we should end it. That was her only argument about this in her last speech. She completely dropped mine, which stated that even if she wins all War on Drug arguments, she still loses because it doesn't mean we legalize. This is HUGE. She loses access to all arguments related to it due to this concession. 4. Does affirming solve black market? In her last speech, pro claimed I dropped this. She herself refutes that. Here are a couple of her quotes. "Con completely drops this huge contention" Later, "Con's response has been a market would still exist. .. " So she claimed I dropped it, but then said I made an argument against it. In any case, Pro makes the claim that a black market for only underage users is insignificant. I already explained this isn't true; my evidence showed you that the underage drug users is literally over half of the entire market. Over 50% is not "insignificant". Against this, she says that she doesn't know why there would be cartels in the first place if you affirm. The reason is that she only legalizes for people over the age of 18. So the cartels remain for everyone under that, which is 51%. So what we hopefully see is that the black market will not be solved through her legalization system. 5. Do medical benefits outweigh harms? Pro claims some illegal drugs have medical benefits. Yes they do. However, the harms of them outweigh. For example, wild mushrooms are high in fiber, so they provide a nutritional benefit, but they are also poisonous. So the harms outweigh the benefit. I give sources explaining the negative health effects of drugs and pro says thats true of your everyday painkiller. I ask my opponent, does Tylenol cause permanent depletion of seratonin levels, like ecstasy? Does Aleve cause Psychosis, like LSD? No, they dont. We need to realize that the harms of illegal drugs like E and crack are much stronger than your regular over-the-counter stuff. To finalize, I stronly urge you to reread my initial argument on Deterrance, showing what happened when marijuana was made freely available and heroin was available with a prescription. These really show you what happens if we affirm. While my opponent's examples are equally interesting, they simply do not involve enough of the population to draw conclusions from. For all of these reason, I urge a con vote. Thanks for the debate.

Title: Health care should be free Content: Hello, thank you for your response! Here I have another point of view, Clearly, because of economical reasons the country can't provide free medicine to all its citizens. But nowadays, doctors taking our money. Even if inspection and some procedures are free, medicaments are not, and they're very expensive. Therefore, many of doctors work with pharmaceutical companies, and have contracts with them. When we enter into doctor's office we see different titles on their instruments, or stickers, or pens. They advertise the certain product. They advice us to take exactly that medicament, which was produced from certain firm, and we don't have another choice, except buying and taking it. So, does they do money on our illnesses? I would say yes. The average citizen, with his average salary can't afford buying many of medicaments. The government should take care of its citizens. The goverment should provide the best sourses. The government must make such thing as our health, and well-being accessible.

Title: Resolved: All drugs should be legalized for recreationial use. Content: This is a debate for A341 to finially finish his debate on this topic and I took him up on this. I thank him ahead of time for accepting this challenge. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. All- every (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Legalized- to make legal (http://dictionary.reference.com...) recreationial (drug)- (of a drug or medication) used for recreation and enjoyment rather than to treat a medical condition: ( http://dictionary.reference.com...) *Note- this debate is about legalizing drugs for recreationial purposes not medicinial.

Title: advertising is harmful Content: Advertising helps us choose between different goods.

Title: Making room to put a nutrition class in grade school through high school. Content: people should know how to take care of their body so they can prevent the majority of diseases and cancers and get off of the dependency of pharmoseutical companies or cold hearted pill pushers which ever name you prefer. Maybe not all but my overall view of pharmosuetical companies is pretty negative because they choose not to spend any money on commercials or info on prevention. they have the knowledge and power yet choose to take advantage of people and thier money.

Title: advertisment aimed at children should be banned Content: My opponent says a few more things: 1. Children demand products. ----> Extend my arguments about parental responsibility. 2. Sometimes parents can't afford what children want. ----> This doesn't have anything to do with my points regarding advertising rights and the good that comes from marketing, nor does it challenge anything I said about parental responsibility. 3. Advertisements should promote healthier things. ----> This isn't a debate about what advertisement should advertise; it's about whether advertisement aimed at children should be banned. I've explained throughout this debate that advertising is vital to a company's success. Said company employs many people which is good for the economy and society in general. Many times advertisements are the only way to successfully promote a product. Children can inform their parents of the product, and the parents can use their best judgment about whether or not to make the purchase. Regarding the harms of self-esteem from advertisement, extend my arguments from the previous round.

Title: Fast Food and Your Dental Health Content: Business has a right to advertise its product. Without successful advertising the industry would undoubtedly shrink. The resulting loss of employment for fast food workers would bring its own set of dangers to health and well being.

Title: Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US Content: I am a proponent for the free market in the Healthcare business. I believe doctors and hospitals should be competing for customers in order to deliver the best value at the lowest price. Doctors and hospitals should openly publish their prices so customers can make their own decision as to the best value for them. Government needs to reduce it's presence in the industry to that which increases competition among providers.

Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: Resolved: Medicines Should Be Made FreeI am Con, so Pro should start the argument first.

Title: Drugs should be legalized in the U.S. Content: 1a) I did not bring up advertising expenditures. My opponent did. Therefore, there was no point for me to prove. In addition, by definition, revenue itself cannot represent a loss. Loss occurs as a result of the costs associated in generating that revenue. The costs of total drug legalization are much broader in scope than simple advertising expenditures. I have already outlined these costs in my four previous arguments. This point was originally meant to highlight the lack of any legitimate sourcing or data by my opponent with regards to his 'estimates' of potential legalized drug revenues. 1b) A new regulatory unit would not be funded with the purpose of performing simple inspections. This unit would be required to oversee all aspects of the new industry. Police do not inspect airlines, the FAA does. Police do not provide standards for allowing pharmaceutical companies to see meds, the FDA does. Police do not inspect people's taxes, the IRS does. The regulatory units are responsible for the creation of standards, the monitoring of the industry, the maintenance of quality, the detection of issues, the promotion of solutions, the suggestion of changes, the analysis of data, the presentation to legislators, etc. All three of the units I mentioned earlier (FAA, FDA, IRS) are very underfunded, meaning they need more funding to operate optimally. This new agency would encounter the same problems, aside from its initial funding costs. 2a) The W-2 program itself and the supposed success of it are outside the scope of this discussion. In addition, we don't know what portion of these criminals would join welfare or that program, should it actually be successful on a national scale. The whole point is that the program and welfare both represent COSTS. More people in the program means more COSTS. In addition, the portion of criminals that would not enter such a program would likely re-enter the black market. Another cost, and an impediment towards crime rate reduction. 2b) In order to obtain a warrant, police need probable cause that a crime or evidence of a crime exists in a household. If drugs are legal, then it makes it that much more difficult for police to obtain a warrant with regards to 'excess drugs'. How would a police officer obtain a warrant due to probable cause, where he/she suspects a legal drug use to have too much of a legal drug? In addition, the necessary work involved in finding this proof and obtaining the necessary warrants represents yet another COST. Time and resources cost money. 3 main reasons the drug trade may be somewhat profitable: 1) They are oligopolistic in nature. Therefore they can control prices; 2) Barriers to purchase exist. People cannot buy them legally, so dealers place a premium on the price. 3) Depending on the dealers, lower quality (and potentially dangerous) substitute substances can be used in the production of some of these drugs in order to lower costs All of these reasons would disappear if all drugs were legalized. Throw a tax in there, and all of a sudden, most (if not all) of this supposed surplus disappears. I could write more, but all of my points have been stated in the previous four arguments. The main point is this: The costs of legalizing all drugs (regulation, tax collection, litigation, productivity, rehabilitation, life-damage, etc, etc, etc) exceed the benefits (a guessed-at tax revenue figure, based off of journalistic data).

Title: universal health care Content: Ok. Good one. But there are some things you seem to have overlooked. First, I am well aware that doctors are allowed to prescribe medications in the fashion that you described. As I stated before, I know people that have used LDN successfully. The problem is, though, that if you took a survey of 100 random people, less than 10 will have actually heard of the drug. This is because the drug companies refuse to sell it and therefore no one has heard of it. If you asked anyone in this country what drugs they had heard of, they would probably only name drugs they had seen in advertisements, unless of course they were pharmacists or pharmacy students like yourself. Sure, these medications like LDN CAN be prescribed, but WILL they? You said that it would take "billions of billions of dollars" to research a new drug. I highly doubt it would be that much, as $1 billion squared looks like this: $1,000,000,000,000,000,000. That much for one drug? I don't think so. "new drugs that aren't just being used in the U.S., they are being used all over the world" If I want to help another country, I can donate money to one of the hundreds of thousands of organizations devoted to the cause of foreign aid. Our money should be used for our drugs. Not theirs. Also, our country can help them fund their own research programs to aid them in this issue. "What would be the point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill if you can't charge lots of money for it?" The point of spending billions of dollars for a new pill is to SAVE LIVES. You seem to be completely overlooking the whole reason we have HEALTH care. It is for the HEALTH of the PEOPLE. If that is the cost of health care, so be it. The government's job is not to make money. We have taxes for that. The government's job is to benefit THE PEOPLE. One other thing that you didn't mention is the insurance companies. Millions of Americans are going TO DIE because they can't pay for emergency room treatment and are essentially DENIED THE RIGHT TO LIVE. The point of universal health care is not to make money. It is to provide health care for everyone. The money should not matter. I'm sure it's great to be a rich capitalist, but I'm also pretty sure it's not so great WHEN YOU'RE SICK.

Title: Advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated Content: I am going to argue that the advertisement on the internet needs to be strictly regulated. 1 round acceptance only. 2 round argument 3 round rebuttals

Title: Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results Content: Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. “The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. “The pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. “Drug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political "contributions" over the past decade in the US alone.”[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi

Title: Drug Legalization Content: Again, thanking my opponent for his response. And no, i fail to understand where the mixed message resides, although i am hardly surprised as to why you feel this way. "I know that the FDA is necessary." The vital part of the FDAs system is to ban drugs that are lethal. Please explain how the FDA can properly enforce their rules if they are unable to ban the drugs. "Why are we trusting the government to tell us what is good and what is bad?" I agree. Clearly, this government, that has banned Child Pornography and selling assault rifles to minors, could not possibly tell us what is good and what is bad. Clearly, the government should not be trusted. Putting that to the side, are you telling me that organizations such as the ATF, which crack down on underage drinking and unregistered illegal firearms passing from person to person, are bad organizations that should not be trusted? "People should read the labels." I have a bottle of Advil right infront of me. It states: Warning: Do not take Advil if taking acetylsalicyclic acid or other products containing Ibuprofen, or if allergic to ASA, salicylates, or anti-inflammatory drugs, or any of its ingredients. Now, how many people do you think, out of a random group of 1000 from the general public, understand any of those chemical compositions or its derivative names? Furthermore, will you visit the doctor every time you have a migrane or headache? Or every time your child scrapes his knee? I shall make my point, after you answer said question. "It should require things on labels" It already does require things on labels. "it should be able to ban things outright." Ill take that as a typo. "we have informed consent that they are using an untested drug." First off, one clinical trial, no matter how bad the results, is sufficient to be labeled as "tested". So, the untested drug absurdity is gone from the label. Secondly, I dont understand what you mean by wanting to "Re-label said drugs once theyve been tested". "You complain that we need labels, and then you don't use them." My opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never complained or claimed to have said that we need labels. We already have labels. We do not need what is already present. I did however say that the FDA is responsible for what goes on the labels. "If people want rehab centers after they've taken drugs, then they should go ahead" First you advocate letting them all die, as that would be good for mankind. Now you advocate that we should heal them, as that would be good for the economy. Please make up your mind. "No, we shouldn't kill off the disabled. They are eliminated naturally by the environment." Eliminated how? Last time i checked, the average lifespan of the disabled, are roughly the same as the lifespan of a non-disabled. "The option to use drugs is natural" I dont understand this either. How is it natural to be able to use Cocaine, pot and other drugs that are currently restricted. "we don't kill off druggies" Youve done nothing but advocated this. By "kill off", i dont mean that we kill them, i mean to purposefully eliminate them from the population. And that is what you are doing by advocating this. I will quote from you: "Legalizing drugs allows us to discover even more people who have suicidal traits, allowing for their immediate elimination from the gene pool." Youve basically said that Legalization of Drugs allows us to recognize those with the Suicide "trait", allowing for their immediate removal from society. Therefore, you are advocating that we recognize and remove them from society. Otherwise, why else would we need to recognize them in the first place? "If they can survive, then by all means, they survived." Of course they will survive. Suicide is not a trait. "We don't know that there is no suicide gene" The problem with this statement, is two fold. First, suicide is an act. Can you say that Working as a bakery chef, is an inheritable trait? Of course not. For someone to want to become a Bakery chef, there are certain emotions and experiences that are required. The same for Suicide. Secondly, most drug users are not suicidal. There are many recreational drug users who use, for example, ecstasy, as a sexual enhancement drug. As for Intelligence being inherited: Although, by stupidity, i didnt mean intelligence, but rather the specific stupid act, in this case of taking drugs, that is inherited as your suicide trait would naturally conclude, intelligence being inherited is a mixed issue at best. First off, Herrnstein and Murray both caution the interpretation of the bell curve, as they acknowledge that environmental effects could be present. Secondly, studies done by people such as James Flynn have concluded that the IQ has increased over the past 100 years(1) and other studies have determined that various environmental effects have affected the IQ(2). "If the people at the counter are required to inform them, then they would." Even if they ant afford health care or cannot afford to see a doctor on a regular basis whenever they need to buy a bottle of aspirin? Or cannot understand english as well as others? "My opponent thinks that companies can make substances illegal." My opponent has placed words in my mouth again. I have never even stated that Companies have the authority to ban substances of any kind. That is what the FDA is for. Perhaps my opponent has misunderstood my argument. I am fairly certain that my opponent also believes that driving under the influence of such drugs should also be prohibited, as is walking around the streets freely smoking or snorting these drugs. Therefore, my opponent is advocating that if the usage of the drug places any person nearby in danger or harm, that person should be barred from using such drugs in those specific locations or circumstances. This is essentially why we made drugs illegal. "People should simply be held liable for their actions." My opponent has made another foolish argument. He is now stating, that we should be concerned more about the liability than prevention. This is absurd, as anyone would understand that they would rather have prevented a situation rather than be compensated for it. Especially if it involves the loss of a loved one. "but this would not be punishable by law." Again, my opponent has placed words in my mouth. I have never stated that the Government will punish the worker. "turns people into dangerous beasts" If by dangerous, you mean unpredictable, deranged and paranoid, then yes, it does. "only use their drugs in their own home." What about the streets. Parks. public locations which contain people, but are not under the jurisdiction of a specific property owner. Also, i disagree with how drug useage in your own home prevents harm to other people. Firstly, youre only alone in your home if you are a loner or a loser. Secondly, there is a door. You can walk through it. There are windows. You can jump through them. Now for my opponents contentions: 2. So would Child Pornography help the economy as well. Pass. 3. Again, so do child pornography holders thrown into jails as well. Its hurting the economy. However, illegal stuff are still illegal. Pass. ""Why can't we wear hats in school?" -wjmelements" Hats dont hurt anyone. No one goes on a killing spree because they were wearing a hat. Drugs do. People go on killing sprees all the time because they were under the influence of drugs. Let me ask you this, as a final question in this round. Who would you hold liable if a man who was high on cocaine, went into a public school, killed a dozen children and then proceeded to shoot himself? Sources: 1. Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29-51. 2 Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.). Handbook of Intelligence: Theories, Measurements, and

Title: Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America Content: I agree with the burden of proof as well as the definitions. Lets have at it! ========== Lower Costs ========== -Electronic Conversion This is simply a non-unique argument. Offices are already doing this without being forced to by the government. We would be spending more money by making companies do this, while they are already doing so. We would just be spending money to enforce what does not need to be. -Better care for chronic patients Quality cannot be forced. Quality occurs because of competition. This is simple economics. If doctors have to compete for patients, they can lower their prices, and increase the quality of their work. If there is competition, there is quality. If there is no competition (under Obama's plan), there is lower quality. If doctors are paid the same, there is NO incentive to increase the quality of their work. The remaining parts of the "argument" are simply excerpts of the plan that I have addressed. I will address one more segment though. "'Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers.'" This is ridiculous. This will not lower prices since drug companies already sell generic drugs. They lower prices BECAUSE they already sell generic drugs. If they did not, they would hurt themselves. If Wal-Mart stopped selling generic Ibuprofen, Walgreens would profit. This would not be wise for Wal-Mart, and thus has never happened. This is another non-unique argument. ======================= STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH ======================= Once again, there is no argument made. My opponent simply spouts verses from the HC plan. "'(1) EMPLOYERS. [...] To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts.'" Pay close attention to the last line. Whenever the President "encourages" or "rewards" a certain action, it means more money being spent. Obama has already promised not to raise taxes on people who make under $250,000 a year. With such a large part of the population not being taxed higher, the US starts to lack funds. (Anyone notice we are already in trillions of dollars in debt?) If he is going to reward these actions, he needs funds. Where are the funds coming from? If not from taxpayer dollars, then he can resort to either extreme taxation on the upper-class, or printing off more money (which he has already done). Then we are left with either extremely disproportionate taxes (which discourages achievement) or inflation. Do any of these options sound like a good idea? If we let the free market do its thing, the best interests of the economy and the American people are brought to the surface. "'(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic [7] [...]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.'" Once again, note the term "increased financial support." Where is that money going to come from? "'(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives – if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the new public plan.'" Here is what this section is really saying: The smart people who take care of themselves are going to be paying for the dumb, lazy people who rely on taxpayer dollars to live. Plain and simple. With this plan, we award stupidity. People work hard for their money. If they want healthcare, they will buy it. If people do not work, and do not make money, they will not buy healthcare. If the working class is forced to pay for the health of the lazy class, then there is absolutely NO incentive to be a hard worker! How is that good for anyone, much less the economy? ========================= Bad news for those with Healthcare ========================= Obama's health-care plan is drawing criticism from one of his own advisers, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein. In today's Washington Post, Feldstein warns that "For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement." Obama's plan would "cost more than $1 trillion," and raise the top federal "income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent." That certainly doesn't sound like it helps the American people. Are we going to disregard that 85% of Americans? ============ My Conclusion ============ If we go with Obama's HC plan, we have two major issues. 1-Insufficient funds 2-Extremely detrimental effects to 85% of Americans To me, that sounds more than enough to deject the HC plan. The resolution is negated. ============ Sources ============ http://www.hovservices.com... http://www.openmarket.org... http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com... http://www.barackobama.com... http://www.mlive.com...

Title: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors... Content: There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.

Title: The Illegality Of Recreational Drugs Results In Unnecessary Risks For Those Who Choose To Consume Them Content: The health concerns of consumers of recreational drugs are irrelevant. Not only are recreational drugs inherently unhealthy (and so consumers of recreational drugs consent to consuming something which is detrimental to their health) but consumers of recreational drugs engage in illegal activity by so doing. The health concerns which result from illegal activity are not something which should be considered when assessing the legality of such activity.

Title: In the US, All drugs should be legalized Content: IntroductionGenerally a pretty weak round from con. He ignores substantial parts of my arguments and continues to make non-sequitors despite them having been exposed to him. He also insists on using C3 (no matter how poorly he argues for it) as an argument. I have complied and organized it with the others.Repeatedly my opponent makes the egregious error of assuming that non-violent drug crime is limited only to drug usuage. Obviously it applies to drug selling too.C1I conceded that many drugs can be harmful and that removing market distortions will increase demand. These are basic facts. However, what my opponent has utterly failed to do is demonstrate why these facts mean that drugs should be illegal. He merely iterates that drugs have harmful effects. I ask again; so what? He has not demonstrated that any body has the right to intervene to prevent an individual making a free choice which may have consequences for themselves. The individuals are choosing the utility gained from using the drugs over the utility lost from the health risks. Any body deciding that they can make that choice for other people and then forcibly enforcing this decision would be acting unethically (see ethics arguments).There are many products which are legal which are harmful to the individual; TVs and digital devices with small LCD screens can harm the eyesight, the bag of pretzels I am eating right now contains a dangerous amount of salt, Jersey Shore has caused premature mind rot in thousands and alcohol ismarvellous is very harmful. These are well documented dangers, yet the products remain legal.Should these be made illegal the number of users would decrease. Does this mean they should be illegal? Of course not! People should have the freedom to harm themselves in any manner they please.This argument must be considered completely irrevelent.C2Here my opponent shows a worrying lack of knowledge of how black markets work, despite my explanation provided last round.Black markets are formed by some sort of government artificial market distortion being imposed upon a market. This could be tax or a law. If there was no law decreeing the use or purchase/selling of drugs to be illegal to provide this market distortion, a black market could not exist, as it wouldn't be profitable and therefore smuggling cartels could not exist.My opponent makes a bizzarrely ignorant assertion:"Banning it may hurt the black market overtime as its goal (and has been working ok so far) has been to discourage people from using drugs, and this constricts black market profit."As explained before, the oposite is true. Banning drugs is the only thing that keeps the black market in existence.If we do decide to legalize but not tax (a position I do not support, and a proposition utterly irrelevent to the debate at hand), it would still reduce the size of the black market massively, as they would only be able to charge market prices, rather than at inflated costs as a result of the removal of some of the market distortions.This argument must be considered utterly false and self-defeating in that it is easy to demonstrate that legalizing drugs would reduce smuggling.C3My opponent drops my second and third reasons why this argument is irrelevent. This alone would be sufficient for me to consider this argument dropped.However, I shall also point out the foolishness in my opponents counter argument. He makes the non-sequitor leap that laws must be made by an authority to; that authority must be the government in this resolution. If the legal entity prevent legalization is a UN treaty, then that is the mechanism by which the resolution pertains. This is obvious, and frankly it is disappointing that my opponent keeps persuing this line of argument.C4The latter two of con's links do not work, so I cannot see to what "facts" I am responding. The first link is an essay with no direction as to where the facts can be found. However, I managed to find the supposed statistic; its source was "40. "MTV Show Favors Drug Legalization," Drug Policy Report 1 September 1994.". This source does not corroborate the supposed foundings. Therefore, in this case my source should be given preference.Furthermore, it is irrelevent whether only 700 where arrested for drug usuage only. It does not take into account the vast many more numbers who were arrested for selling drugs only - these crime figures would fall vastly.Con's latter two points are irrelevent; the violent acts commited under influence are the acts which should (and are) be illegal. If it were found that wearing a cone on your head made you more prone to violent acts, would it be sane to ban cones? Of course not! The violent acts are already illegal. We punish the act, not the conditions.My opponent has also dropped my argument that he is using the post hoc fallacy.At this point we can consider every single on of my opponents arguments thoroughly refuted.Counter-argumentsEthics.My opponent claims that because drugs cause crime (an assertion totally unproven - he has still dropped my false causality argument) people in support of the NAP would be against drugs. I believe there are two ways of considering my opponent now:a) he did not read my argument, which is quite rudeb) he is practicing some odd form of trollery, in which case I take my hat off to him.To reiterate in the hope he reads this time; any act which does not initiate force against another or his property can not be considered unethical. To initiate force is unehtical. There is no way that the use of drugs can fall into the unethical catagory, and no way the prevention of use of drugs can fall into the ethical catagory.His next argument also demonstrates a sheer lack of comprehension:"My opponents argument also lies upon it is my right to use drugs etc. Well first basic civil rights argue or prohibitive drug laws. Also there is no right if it infringes on life or pursuit of happiness"It should be obvious that at no point ever on the planet in any sane persons mind could the NAP be advocating a positive liberty as my opponent suggests it does. His argument here is incredibly bizarre. The NAP advocates negative liberties; that there are things you don't do to others, such as initiate force. As drugs do not fall into any form of iniation of force they must be ethical.I would heavily recommend my opponent reads my argument carefully for the next round if he wishes to have a chance of winning.Practicality1. Economic - percentages are irrelevent. If it is doing something bad (see above), we should be spending no money on it. Furthermore, your source does not include all costs of the drug war - the 11 billion statistic is not true as of 2009.2.700 statistic only refers to drug users. Everyone else referred in my statistic was (by process of elimination) a drug seller. They would be out of jail too.Thus the savings here still stand.3.The additional cost to users caused by a black market price distortions. The black market wouldn't exist if there were no taxes on the drugs (as has been trivially proven above). If it were legal and taxed (again something irrelevent to the resolution and something I don't support) the black market would charge at under the white market prices. ConclusionOverall, the last round from my opponent was notably poor. His arguments were weak and his counter-arguments a mixture of red-herrings and poor reading comprehension.

Title: People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to g... Content: Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.

Title: Advertisements are an attempt to brainwash customers. Content: Adverts which use very sly methods like subliminal images (images which are shown so quickly the viewer doesn't consciously realise they saw them) are already banned. The other forms of advertising are just companies being creative. There is no difference from supermarkets being painted bright colours to make their food seem more appetising or even people wearing make-up to improve their image. People make unconscious judgements all the time, and we frequently try to influence these choices by the way we present ourselves. This isn't brainwashing, so neither is advertising.

Title: Medicines Should Be Made Free Content: 1. Rebuttals: Firstly, there has been a very fundamental doubt in the topic of the debate itself, which I would like to clarify. In one of the rounds, Pro wants to “remind Con that this debate is just about medicines being made free; not about treatment costs or medication. ” In fact, Pro has already given the definition of the term “medicine” in Google dictionary is "a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease. ” For curing some diseases, it takes more than just a tablet or syrup in order to cure the condition! It requires careful scanning, medication and treatment by using various other instruments or surgery. So, Pro’s arguments on saying treatment and medication is not in the realm of medicine simply does not make sense at all. This is very necessary because if Pro wants to make medicines free, this includes treatment costs as the topic is "Medicines Should Be Made Free. ” Therefore Pro cannot make the cost of treatment rise as it would be contradictory to the debate topic. Secondly, Pro states that "basic medicines” for cold, fever and pain should be made free. But, the topic is "Medicines Should Be Made Free” which means all medicines, be it treatments, medication, tablets and syrups for every disease should be made free. Making only basic medicines free is against the whole topic of the debate. I would like to rewrite the burdens of the debate for Pro, and her burden is to show that it is an absolute necessity to make every medicine free of cost. Thirdly, pro states that pharmaceutical companies can still "mint money" if medicines are made free, but gives very little proof of such a type of event can actually occur. Again, I repeat, there won’t be any medicines to give if they are made free. Last, but not the least, Pro states that medicines are absolute necessity, therefore it is prudent to give them free of cost. If we go by that logic, almost everything becomes an absolute necessity for us, therefore, should everything be given free of cost. A home, an absolute necessity for any individual, is not given free of cost, is it? Any person gets his/her reward for the amount of hard work and effort they put in. The elders say: "There is nothing called free lunch. ” But I would like to rephrase, "There is nothing called demand for free lunch” either! 2. Misuse In the 20th and 21st century, misuse of drugs has been prevalent. There has been misuse of drugs in many fields, including sports and academics. There are a number of addictive drugs in both markets and black markets which allows any person to misuse these drugs. Even though these drugs were made for the benefit of the population, they are mainly being used today for the addiction of the population! Finally, all these addictions are psychological, a person always does a careful cost benefit analysis before misusing the drug, and once misused out of curiosity, it becomes a dirty habit hard to get rid of. I believe that the cost of these illegal drugs plays an important role in preventing the population for misusing the drug. There are a number of fools out there who misuse these drugs regardless of the cost, but there even few of them who take the cost into consideration. Fear for both the consequences and cost plays a major role in ruling out the curiosity in their mind while performing a cost benefit analysis for a lot of people, finally taking the decision not to misuse the drugs. If medicines are made free, then the cost (money) part of the analysis gets ruled out, curiosity being more favourable than fear, a large amount of the population can misuse the drugs if they get the chance. Therefore, more bans on illegal drugs will be imposed, which are futile because, anyway, the drugs are free, thus gangs and drug lords will supply drugs more easily to the population. I believe we must work hard enough so that we can get all our treasures and rewards. In a nutshell, this debate is comprehensive to many fields in today’s world, and opposes Pro's statements in each field. The debate is itself a subject of morality, where the people who work hard succeed and secure their future and health and the lazy fail to do so. Apart from this, this debate is also economically and scientifically connected, highlighting the consequences when no research, payment of salaries and distribution of medication can take place when there is an economic deficiency. Lastly, this debate is related to the psychology of the human mind to or not misuse drugs.