Drug Legalization

I will refute my opponent's refutations in the order he has posted them.Me: If drugs were to be legalized, multimillion corporations, which would no doubt be established, would be free to launch mass advertising campaigns promoting these drugs to the entire nation.Pro: What is wrong with business and corporations being established. In fact we should be happy, business and corporations drive our economy and drugs will no longer be monopolized by cartels.What's wrong?? As I have already establised quite explicitly, business and corporations will launch huge campaigns, promoting the drugs at an incredible scale. This will without a doubt increase the number of users of these drugs.Me: A staggering number people allow themselves to be put under the influence of legal drugs. Not all of these people are addicts, but the drugs that my opponent believes should be legalized are highly addictive. Imagine the sheer number of people who are very productive citizens becoming encumbered and debilitated by drugs that we currently consider illegal.Pro: Keeping drugs illegal would make no difference, people will take drugs no matter what the law says. Despite massive amounts of government spending fighting drugs in America drug addiction has stayed the same (3)My opponent completely digresses from my point. I said that a sheer increase in the number of drug users/addicts will occur. My opponent, in a non-refuting statement, says that people will take drugs no matter what the law says. I did not say that the law stops all drug use. I am merely saying that the numbers will increase dramatically. That drug addiction has remained the same under government control has nothing to do with the massive number of people who will be subjected to addiction or abuse and knocked out of the workforce.Me: A staggering number people allow themselves to be put under the influence of legal drugs. Not all of these people are addicts, but the drugs that my opponent believes should be legalized are highly addictive. Imagine the sheer number of people who are very productive citizens becoming encumbered and debilitated by drugs that we currently consider illegal.Pro: My opponent statement is based on a fallacy that legalizing drugs will cause more people to take drugs. This fallacy has been proven false. In Portugal they simply decriminalized not even legalized drugs and drug abuse is down 50% (1) and Portugal has the lowest rate of marijuana use in the EU which is 10% what is it in America, 40% (2). Note that my opponent says the Portuguese have decriminalized drug substances. This points to nothing. Upon careful analysis of my opponent's source, I find it imperative to explain Portugal drug policy. Decriminalization =/= legalization. Here's an excerpt from my opponent's source:"First, some clarification. Portugal's move to decriminalize does not mean people can carry around, use, and sell drugs free from police interference. That would be legalization. Rather, all drugs are "decriminalized," meaning drug possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a criminal offense, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender's unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the US)" (1)My opponent tries to promote decriminalization as legalization, using a a true statistic that falsely relates to his premise. I find decriminalization to be a good idea, maybe we should enforce that policy, but I digress...moving on.Pro: Keeping drugs illegal would make no difference, people will take drugs no matter what the law says. Despite massive amounts of government spending fighting drugs in America drug addiction has stayed the same (3)Again, my opponent makes a pointless refutation that does not address my point about the increase in numbers of drug users. Of course legalization makes a difference. The difference between use of a legal and illegal drug is huge. Here are some statistics for marijuana, the MOST used illegal drug in the USA: About 10% of males use marijuana compared to 6% of females About 10% of users will go on to daily users Almost 7% - 10% of regular users become dependent 14.6 million Americans report using marijuana in the last month 100,000 people per year are treated for marijuana addiction http://www.healthyplace.com...Here are tobacco statistics: 1. In 2009, nearly 70 million Americans age 12 and older had used a tobacco product at least once in the month prior to being surveyed (3) 2. It is estimated that there are more than 43 million adults who currently smoke in the United States (2)3. Tobacco also costs our nation more than $100,000,000,000 each year in medical expenses and lost productivity in the workplace. (3) Marijuana is the most abused illegal drug. All other illegal drugs have much lower numbers, but are massively more addictive (cocaine, heroine, etc.) If corporations were to advertise these drugs at the same scale that tobacco is being advertised (tobacco industries spend $6,000,000,000 a year advertising their product), their numbers would soar above and beyond that of tobacco if only due to their highly addictive nature. Must I also mention that many illegal drugs are not only much more addicting, but also much more harmful? Notice the loss of workplace production in tobacco alone. Pro: My opponent brings up economic costs. There is still an economic benefit, the economic costs my opponent talks about have always been there. Look drugs are always going to be in our society because of that we need to tackle this issue in a different manner; instead of imprisoning and spending billions on prohibition the government can take a much cheaper approach and pay for rehab and drug education that is a much sensible way of dealing with drugs. I've already effectively refuted the 'economic benefits' of legalization. Economic costs will always be there. That is correct. I have shown that economic costs outweigh economic benefits. Legalization will only raise economic costs and amass more money for the drug corporation. The economic benefits provided do not cover the costs. I agree that rehab is a good approach, but rehabilitation institutions can be implemented without legalization. This is basically recriminalization. As established earlier, recriminalization =/= legalization. Pro: I find quite ironic that my opponent is bringing this up because the effects my opponent were talking about is after China made Opium an illegal drug (4) Let me explain. China illegalized Opium watching it drain its resources. China made the fatal error of allowing opium to run for a few years, subtracting from its nation's economic reserves and destroying the workforce. the effects were already there before opium was made illegal. This refutation is completely insignificant and does not refute my historical argument. (Short-circuiting my round due to lack of character space) My opponent's premises have been proven erroneous. His main argument, economic benefits, has been successfully refuted. My premises stand above my opponent's tangential refutations. Illegal drugs should retain their illegal status. Con wins. (1)http://www.globalpost.com...(2) http://www.stopsmokingbible.com...(3) http://www.drugabuse.gov...