let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal

I now understand why Pro does not use any data to support his claims. He simply doesn't believe in statistics, even though statistics are used every day in all aspects of life. He seems to believe that the data can be manipulated to a degree of $180.9 Billion/Year. "what then of the productivity losses due to facebook? Due to cell phones and text messaging? Perhaps we should ban everything that could possibly distract someone from the holy task of obeying their bosses orders. Ban shiny objects, and jokes. Ban water coolers!" - There is a productivity loss due to the things that Pro has pointed out. "Nearly 60% of work interruptions now involve either using tools like email, social networks, text messaging and IM, or switching windows among disparate standalone tools and applications. In fact, 45% of employees work only 15 minutes or less without getting interrupted, and 53% waste at least one hour a day due to all types of distractions." http://harmon.ie... And, many employers have made Social Media against company policy due to this reason. The difference is that there are no physical addictions that require time from work due to rehabilitation, hospitalization, or incarceration. These things can be left at home, where drug addiction cannot. It seems that Pro is denying that there is any such thing as drug addiction. If he admits that there are such things as drug addiction, he has to admit that it impacts productivity costs, as well as health costs and other costs. The latter two he completely does not attempt to refute, so I will assume that he concedes to these costs. "But my opponents own argument is self defeating. He measures the productivity loss because all these people are incarcerated. Well duh! If we didn't have the war on drugs, they wouldn't be incarcerated. In other words, my opponents statistics are the perfect argument against his case that drugs should be legal. Not only would all these people be able to work, if they wanted to, because they weren't behind bars - we wouldn't need nearly as many guards, or prisons, or many aspects of the prison industrial complex, if drugs were legal and the government hadn't criminalized the non violent behaviour of such a vast portion of the public. " - This simply is not true. Pro is completely ignoring the fact that other crimes are committed to support drug Addict's habits. He seems to believe that a heroin Addict can work a 40 hour work week, do his recreational drugs in the evenings and weekends, collect a paycheck, and purchase his heroin with his paycheck. If we assume that Pro is correct, for argument sake, eventually the heroin Addict's paycheck will not be enough to support his habit. "There is evidence that after prolonged use heroin is highly addictive. People who use heroin regularly can develop dependence and tolerance to it, which means they need to take larger amounts of heroin to get the same effect." http://www.mydr.com.au... "The production of a KG of cocaine is not significantly more complicated that the production of a KG of flour. Yet a KG of flour will costs you a few dollars and a KG of cocaine will cost you probably over ten thousand dollars. Why? Because the price of the cocaine includes a huge risk premium for all the dealers who are facing life in jail for selling it and for all the product which is confiscated by border patrol. If these drugs were legal and bought and sold on the open market then the cost of cocaine would be closer to the cost of flour. The same with all drugs." - Since Pro does not believe in statistics, and doesn't use any data to support this claim, it can be ignored unless Pro can prove that he is an expert in this field. "Marijuana is a plant, there's no reason it should cost $200 an ounce except for the fact it's illegal. If these products were legalized, and especially if they were untaxed, they would cost much less." - Not only does Pro wish for marijuana to be legal, he doesn't want it to be taxed either. So, to keep the cost of something to a level that is affordable for Addicts it shouldn't be taxed? This is not good for ANY Economy in the world, and absurd. "What's the relevance here? Well the reason why a heroin addict must resort to burglary or prostitution to support their several hundred dollars a day habit is because there are not many high paying jobs for heroin junkies. But if heroin was legal it would cost only pennies on the dollar today. They could support their daily habit with a couple hours of begging, or with a very low paying job." - Pro's statement here supports my position. He admits that Addicts can beg and let productive members of society support their habit. Although there is nothing wrong with low paying jobs, somebody has to do those jobs, I would prefer those jobs went to people who actually wanted to support their families and not their habits. Perhaps if we kept drugs illegal, this would be the case for the most part. "Likewise if drugs were not illegal, treatment of addiction and use in general would not be so stigmatized. This would reduce the costs to the health care system and could even reduce overall use." - Pro clearly does not understand what drives up health care costs, or the effects of drug addiction for that matter. Supply and Demand is one aspect that determines the cost of health care. This is basic business principals. Using my supported data in a previous paragraph, that "prolonged use heroin is highly addictive", we can reasonably assume that the legalization of heroin, in this case, would result in more addiction. We can then assume that more health related problems and rehabilitation will be required. As the demand increases, and the supply is limited, the costs increases. http://en.wikipedia.org... (I only used wikipedia for a quick reference. There are a lot of resources on this subject) "To me it is not a question of more or less use being preferable. That is up to the individual. If someone wants to drugs, that's their personal choice - it's their decision not yours" - It is my decision when their choices affect me. This has been my position all along, and I think that I have shown enough proof that the decision does in fact affect me and other. There is no need for further arguments. I feel that I have, not only refuted Pro's position, but also have shown proof as to why all drugs should not be legalized. I appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic.