Drug Legalization

Thanks, Danielle. I'm going to start this round with my own case, and then attack my opponents. =My case= Let's clarify what the resolution is and is not. You can believe that there are significant problems with US drug policy, but the resolution is only affirmed if legalization is proven to be the ideal solution. Lots of the criticisms Danielle makes against drug prohibition (like civil asset forfeiture) are non-unique--that is to say, they can easily be fixed through different policies. In this debate, I will demonstrate that many of my opponents objections to drug enforcement are specious and unique, along with proving that legalization is not a serious or workable solution. I. States Rights Other than marijuana, public opinion is *overwhelmingly* against legalizing drugs, typically by margins of 70 points or more[1]. This strong opposition cuts across all demographic and geographic lines, which is why no serious politician anywhere is advocating for legalization. If the federal government were somehow to abolish all drug statutes right now, virtually (if not literally) all states, municipalities, and localities would reaffirm their commitment to drug prohibition overnight. Existing laws would be strengthened and new ones would be passed--the only change from the status quo would be that state and local governments fight drugs without federal aid. In the real world, nobody wants to legalize drugs and a repeal of the federal statutes would not fundamentally alter the status quo. In order see her proposal through, Danielle has to support the federal government disregarding virtually unanimous public opinion and state sovereignty. The federal government would be forcing cities and states at gunpoint to legalize. There is nothing libertarian about a distant authority denying communities the right to police the behavior of their own members.For the rest of the round, we will assume that the federal government has indeed used military force and coerced states to legalize drugs so that we can examine the world Danielle is arguing for, where anyone can walk down the street and purchase heroine or meth.II. Usage and CostsDrug usage would increase significantly if legalization occurred. This conclusion comes from basic economic theory along with several historic and contemporary examples. The credible threat of legal force acts as an artificial check on both the demand and supply of drugs, as potential users are discouraged from usage and potential makers/sellers are discouraged from those activities, driving the cost up. Rich celebrities are constantly dying from drug overdoses because they can afford the tremendous cost. Legalization makes drugs cheaper for everyone. I seriously doubt Danielle would dispute the basic concept that people follow their incentives. It simply defies all reason to say that drug usage wouldn't increase with no legal penalties and cheaper drugs.It goes beyond theory. We can look to the last time a distant authority forced a sovereign entity at gunpoint to legalize drugs. In 1838, concerned about the growing number of addicts, the emperor of China banned the importation of opium. British merchants were making money selling the drug to the Chinese, so they used military force to coerce the Imperial government into legalizing opium. Before the Opium War, China imported less than 1,400 metric tons of Opium. By 1906, China was producing and consuming 35,000 metric tons of opium and importing 3,000 more[2], nearly 4 times as much Opium as the entire global crop in 2009[3]. The problem continued to plague China until a strong central government stamped it out in the 1940s. Closer to home, an analysis from Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History suggests that per capita consumption of alcohol in the United States was cut in half during prohibition[4]. Prohibition was ended mostly because many states that relied on taxing alcohol suffered severe revenue shortages, not because it failed to decrease alcohol consumption. To gauge the efficacy of drug prohibition we should look to comparable legal and illegal drugs. While 53% of Americans drink alcohol[5], only 13% smoke Marijuana[6]. Unsurprisingly, Marijuana consumption in Colorado skyrocketed after legalization, especially among adults[7]. All of this is to say that drug usage would climb. Danielle complains about the cost of drug enforcement, but the total cost of drug enforcement (around $40 billion a year using her own source[8]) is dwarfed by the total cost to society of illicit drug use--around $193 billion. This itself is dwarfed by the $674 billion cost *legal* drugs like alcohol and tobacco cost society[9]. And despite Danielle's patently absurd suggestion that alcohol is more dangerous than hard drugs, drugs like meth are significantly harder on your body than alcohol or tobacco so the incredible cost that safer, legal drugs impose upon society should give legalization advocates pause. Without the artificial pressures on supply and demand brought about through drug prohibition, far more people would become addicted and pass the cost on to the rest of society. A policy of soft decriminalization, with court-ordered rehabilitation being the most common penalty for drug users, would be more effective and humane than legalization.III. Medicinal DrugsMany of under-developed countries allow people to buy any medicinal drug that they want over the counter. This facilitates the dangerous practice of "self medication" where uninformed consumers buy medicine to treat their ailments without consulting a doctor. This practice causes 20,000 deaths a year in Brazil alone[10] and is a significant problem across the developing world. In a world governed by Danielle's libertarian framework, all drugs could be freely bought and sold by anyone for any reason since it's "their body, their right." Hypochondriacs who think they have cancer could ruin their bodies with chemotherapy. Parents who think their children have ADD or are "trans" can pump their bodies full of adderall or hormone blockers. Patients can destroy their immune systems through rampant abuse of antibiotics. Even responsible people will die if they don't realize the extent of their illness and self medicate with drugs that are too weak.The average person simply is not informed enough to self medicate, and not everyone is going spend the time and money to see a doctor when they can just walk into the drug store and freely purchase whatever it is that they think they need. Tens of thousands will needlessly die and many more will accumulate various ailments that the rest of society ends up paying for. Full legalization also allows for rampant abuse of prescription drugs. At the end of the day, there is absolutely no reason to permit the sale of drugs to treat cancer to people who aren't cancer patients.Moreover, it's questionable how the FDA approval process to screen out dangerous drugs would work in a world where all drugs were legal, or indeed if it would even be allowed to continue. Without a process to screen which new drugs are safe, tens of thousands would die. Drug legalization simply is not a serious proposal. =Danielle's case=Needless to say, I object to Danielle's libertarian framework. Libertarian morality only works in a libertarian system--applying libertarian ethics in a social democratic system like ours is a recipe for disaster. Even if you ignore the moral relevance of the harm drug use has on the family and community, drug addicts directly cost others through consumption of public resources. We do not live in a world where people are allowed to pay for their own mistakes. When a drug addict loses their job, you pay for it. When a user ruins their body and becomes permanently disabled and unemployable, you pay for it. When they spent all their money on drugs and can't pay their emergency room bills, you pay for it. The libertarian morality can be thrown right out the window. We must approach the resolution from a pragmatic perspective. I'll address her stronger arguments in depth in my next round, but right off the bat many of Danielle's claims are misleading or just outright false. For example, she blatantly misrepresents drug "legalization" in Portugal. If you actually read the study that her article describes[11], it explains that Portugal repealed criminal penalties for small time drug users, while retaining bans on manufacture and distribution of drugs. Instead of going to prison, drug users have their fate decided by commissions made up of local community members, who can impose a variety of penalties such a mandatory rehab or community service. This kind of policy is something I fully endorse. It is also not legalization. The ideal penalty for drug addicts should be court ordered rehabilitation, something that Portugal proves to be effective--a legal penalty that I alone can advocate. Danielle makes the absurd claim that alcohol is the most dangerous drug. Anyone taking this argument seriously should ask themselves if they'd rather an otherwise clean loved one got drunk or tried meth. The way to study is framed is misleading--if you actually read the study behind the click-bait article[12], it looks at total, not relative costs. Alcohol is "the most dangerous drug" BECAUSE it is legal and widespread. If alcohol is considered more dangerous than METH because it's legal, one can only imagine the damage that legalizing hard drugs would do.Danielle claims that half of US inmates are imprisoned for drug crimes. In reality, half of inmates in *federal* prisons are in for drug crimes, but federal inmates represent only a small portion of the total. Only 16% of inmates in state prisons are serving for drug offenses[13].These are only a few of her dubious claims. She has few complaints about drug enforcement that stand up to close scrutiny, and even none that can only be solved through total legalization. The resolution is completely untenable. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...