The Terminally Ill Should Be Allowed Access to Any Drugs They Want

======================= =The Terminally Ill Smoking Weed= ======================= "The price to... pay in advance." So we raise drugs to absurdly high prices so that only the richest and stupidest patients can afford to use them, then spend all of the money on the ensuing medical complications, perfectly regulate this system and make incredible profits off of it? Pardon my skepticism, but my opponent's string of unwarranted assertions here needs a bit more proof of solvency than he has given (none.) ========= =Euthanasia= ========= "No it's not... with nonconsentual euthanasia." Well, despite the fact that my opponent clearly knows the every will and desire of doctors, and despite the fact that euthanasia is clearly an exact parallel to sexual intercourse, I can't understand why PRO can't possibly find any empirical evidence to back this up! In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, death rates from nonconsentual euthanasia (which is illegal) are incredibly high. According to my opponent, we would be seeing 10s of thousands of deaths annually in the United States (since making euthanasia illegal does nothing to stop active euthanasia) yet we don't. PRO has multiple times asserted this unwarranted claim, yet can't find any evidence to prove it. "Voluntary passive euthanasia is a term rarely used. Websites referring to euthanasia laws such as the one listed by my opponent most likely did not include "VPE" in their definition of "euthanasia". Even if state law bans VPE federal law trumps it. Under the Patient Self-Determination Act, a patient has the right to refuse treatment for any reason." Um, that's fine and dandy... so what? This resolution has absolutely nothing to do with refusing treatment; it is not "The terminally ill should be allowed to deny access to any drug they want,"; it is not about voluntary passive euthanasia whatsoever. The resolution explicitly proposes that doctors actively give patients drugs that may used to commit suicide. That is an action, and this is voluntary ACTIVE euthanasia. ========= =Duty to Die= ========= My opponent hasn't addressed the key issue involved here. I'll simply restate it: "Again, this is only a mitigation. ANY deaths caused by a duty to die are more than what happens when Euthanasia is illegal. Regardless how my opponent tries to make the impacts sound small (and do some reading on the subject, such as the Netherlands, you'll find they aren't) the fact of the matter is that there are still negative consequences that ensue that wouldn't happen otherwise. PRO conveniently missed this point again." PRO, throughout this debate, has left this argument untouched. ===================== =Old People Stealing MY Drugs= ===================== "We all know 'any' can be used in the way I used it to mean 'any kind'." Believe it or not, words have multiple meanings (try to find any common word with only one definition in your average online dictionary.) Because of this, any old grandma who wants my Tylenol could easily use such a law as 'The terminally ill should be allowed to access any drug they want' to legally deprive me of my medication. "Since language is a social construct used to communicate, the way many people speak is evidence for the correct use of language." Correct. Unfortunately for me, my opponent has done a bang-up job proving that most people interpret the word 'any' in the exact same way that he does. Actually... he hasn't. He's left it up to you to do this work for him. Don't. It's his job to prove that. In fact, I'll direct you to the comments section where the only 2 posts on this debate (at the time of my writing this) have interpreted the resolution in a way that would condone the theft of drugs. This is in direct contradiction to my opponent's un-evidenced claim. My opponent likes to kill babies, so vote CON. There's also the issue of his making no valid arguments, and not addressing mine...