The USFG should legalize all drugs

Con drops my entire case. Extend my argument that drugs are awesome, the harm principle, and my cost/benefit analysis of legalization vs prohibition. Con's argument focuses exclusively on whether drug use is harmful. But the issue in this debate isn't whether drug use is harmful or even net harmful. The issue is whether drug legalization is net harmful when compared with the status quo (or some other advocacy like a decriminalized regime). I showed that legalization minimizes the harms of drug use (and indeed maximizes utility on every level). Con's argument also misses a key nuance: drugs aren't inherently harmful. The harms are caused by the circumstances in which someone consumes drugs. Con cites a number of problems with drugs, things like "clouded thinking," "death," "paranoia," and so on. But these aren't inherently bad things. And doing heroin or cocaine don't guarantee you'll experience these things. These are potential risks. Or potential benefits, depending on your perspective. Remember, any harm associated with drug use needs to be compared against the intense pleasure they bring, their educational value, their medical value, or their value in accomplishing some specific goal, mental or physical state, or death. There's a reason people do drugs in the first place. They're weighing the potential harms against the potential benefits. And if they keep doing drugs, they're deciding that the benefits outweigh. The idea that drugs are inherently harmful is therefore false. You can also apply Con's argument against him: If the government should protect citizens from drugs, it should legalize drugs, so that they're regulated by the FDA, sold with warning labels, kept away from children, and users are reasonably educated about the risks. Legalization also lowers prices, which means addicts won't turn to prostitution, property crime, or homelessness. Again, all the harms I argued in R2 were dropped, so there's not much to add here. Con says the government should protect citizens through the rule of law. But there's other ways to protect citizens than prohibition or punishment. Taxes deter people. Regulatory agencies, like the FDA, help out, too. Also, keep in mind the forbidden fruit effect. In the Book of Genesis, even God couldn't enforce a prohibition. The idea that our government somehow is protecting people from drugs by prohibiting drug use is wrong. Finally, Con observes that it's "feasible" to argue for "less stringent punishments" or "decriminalization." But Con never says he's advocating those things. I have no clue what Con's advocacy is, since he doesn't clarify whether he's supporting "less stringent punishments," or "decriminalization," or what kinds of punishments or alternative to the status quo. To compare the specifics of his case with a legalized regime, I need to know what those specifics are. The status quo is assumed in the absence of a clear alternative to the status quo. So don't let Con get the benefits of "decriminalization" or "less stringent punishments" when Con hasn't offered a clear alternative to the status quo. That said, I'll address decriminalization. The reason legalization is preferable is because in a decriminalized regime, you're still punishing people for using drugs, you can't regulate the drugs (via the FDA), you don't get warning labels, you don't get to ensure the drugs are pure, you can't tax the drugs (so you lose out on the economic benefit), the drugs still operate in a prohibited market (and all the attendant unpredictability that brings), and it still leads to the problems in Mexico, since all our drugs will be provided by Mexico (or other Latin American countries). The benefits of legalization outweigh the costs, whether you're comparing it to the status quo or decriminalization.