Topic Analysis - LD March/April Drugs

By: Alexandra Mork

The new Lincoln Douglas March/April topic is… The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

AFF Ideas

In terms of aff  ideas, some debaters will probably specify types of drugs (i.e. marijuana), but the majority of affs will probably defend the entire resolution.

The largest aff on the topic will probably be a soft left aff that criticizes the criminal justice system  because the government uses minor drug offenses to fuel the prison industrial complex, which disproportionately impacts communities of color.

Another potential aff idea is an aff which argues that the decriminalization of drugs on the basis that they’re a non-violent offense will set a precedent that can also lead to the decriminalization of other non-violent offenses such as sex work.

For util affs, one option is an aff that argues the decriminalization of drugs will hurt drug cartels, with impacts about why drugs are bad.

NEG Ideas

In terms of topicality, one word of contestation might be “drugs”, so many debaters will probably read T-plural against affs that specify one type of drug. In addition, there will probably be contestation over what qualifies as public health.

Some debaters may read disads about the economy. For example, on the Jan/Feb topic from 2017-2018, some people argued that US decriminalization of marijuana collapses the Canadian economy. Because there is evidence on both sides of the drug cartel debate, some debaters may also argue that the decriminalization of drugs would increase demand, which actually strengthens drug cartels with evidence about why drug cartels are bad.

One counterplan people might read is that the combination of criminal justice with mental health is the best solution to drug crimes. Although this is questionably competitive, some negative debaters may argue that because the resolution specifies “not criminal justice”, the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan.

In terms of Ks, one option is a disability critique of medicalization because medicalization excludes disabled people.

Debaters who read philosophy might read a Kant NC. The offense could potentially be arguments about why retribution is an ethical response to violating laws.

A lot of the best neg ground will be reactive to the particular off plan and subject area. So, when prepping, debaters should anticipate common affirmatives and craft case negs based off those.