Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

I. Gun Control >>> Take note: Since my opponenet's resolution asserts two things with an AND [or a typo thereof], all I must do to negate it is negate ONE of these assertions. +++ :( That's just really not nice. II. Prostitution +++ My opponent presumes that prohibiting prostitution actually reduces it, this is untrue. Recall alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933. Home producers created whiskey and bathtub gin. The price of alcohol skyrocketed on the black market, which encouraged greed and inevitably violence. As a result prohibition did literally nothing to actually prevent alcohol from being consumed by the public. The government lost considerable amounts of tax dollars from bootlegged alcohol and it became impossible to regulate the quality, i.e. safety, of the product. This is also true of prostitution prohibition. It is very expensive, while being ineffective and causing violence to take place. +++ Also, In Las Vegad, where prostitution is legal, the prostitutes are checked for STDs. This could be put in place nationally and would be significantly more effective in the fight against STDs from prostitution. >>> Allowing prostitution creates an unproductive job +++ Oh please. Unproductive jobs are already in America. In debate, we call that non-unique. People will continue to play solitaire at work and go to the watercooler whether prostitution is legal or not. C'mon. >>> and promotes infidelity in society. +++ Bad songs, movies, and Bill Clinton promote infidelity in society. The American people can decide what to do with their sex organs! The option of prostitution is still out there and any person with a brain cell can find a prostitute. The prohibition on prostitution is ineffective and useless. If somebody wants to cheat on their spouse, they can manage to do it without a prostitute. +++ Prostitution legalisation would not promote infidelity. Prostitution is already around. The illegality of the practice makes it less likely to suspect. In a world, where it was legal, a spouse would suspect the practice more easily and therefore, it would be less likely and spouses would catch the adulterer easier. >>> Someone is spending time at work, but not truly producing anything useful for society as a whole. +++ It makes people happy. McDonald's floor moppers don't produce anything ofr society as a whole either but should we ban them? >>> Not only that, but it needlessly increases the risk of STD's spreading. +++ Prostitution is already around. The only difference is people will not get arrested and crowd the prison system for their job. >>> Also, promoting infidelity [or rather, not explicitly promoting fidelity] has its own problems for society. This leads to less stable families, which means kids are generally not raised as well, people are often less happy because they are upset at a spouse, and are therefore less productive, etc. +++ Um... This is wildly speculative, tremendously exaggerated, and the links do not link. Infidelity should be illegal, not prostitution. +++ Prostitution laws cost a lot of money that does not hurt anybody and limits freedoms. +++ The Constitution uses the word "not" in reference to restricting government 22 times. The founding fathers do not support victimless crimes, like prostitution. +++ Our police could be stopping thefts and murders, crimes with victims, instead of entrapping workers who are making people happy and not hurting anyone at all. III. Drugs >>> Because of the mind-altering effects of drugs, people will often make bad decisions while on drugs - decisions that are often hurtful to society. +++ Drugs will not be easier to get when legalised. I proved this earlier in Section II, with the Alcohol Prohibition model. The War on Drugs proves to be ineffective. We are all able to acquire drugs and never get caught if we wanted to. It is not even a serious crime. Often, cops will even let you off with a warning for small drug possession, but it is still tremendously costly. Cops can hardly stop prisoners from having narcotics, how can they stop the American public? They can not. >>> Also, Marijuana makes people less ambitious, and therefore less productive. +++ Only after long term use. And this presumes that legalizing marijuana will increase its use. It will not. The Alcohol Prohibition model proves that. So does the Amsterdam model prove that. In Amsterdam, they have proved that. MARIJUANA USAGE IS HALVED WHEN IT WAS LEGALISED IN AMSTERDAM. [http:// www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm] [US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109] And many other drugs are dangerous, and their use runs the risk of prematurely ending lives, another loss for society. IV. Gambling >>> Casino workers get money, but they do nothing to add to the wealth of the country. +++ Yes. They do. They are just as influential to our economy as most other establishments. >>> By disallowing Gambling, our society is more prosperous, since these people might actually have jobs that produce something useful. +++ This is speculative and unproven. V. Conclusion I have proven that the prohibition of anything by the government does not work but only inrceases the usage. In America, the drug usage is double that of Amsterdam, where drugs are legal. Alcohol prohibition in America did not work and was repealed three years later. Prohibitions are always costly and always ineffective. They always cause crime. The United States is rooted on freedom of speech, religion and trade. End Prohibition! End Victimless Crime Laws!