illicit drugs should be legalised

Defense:#1 Users of drugs harm other people involuntarilya) I brought up an excellent counter-example to refute my opponents someone amusing attempt at a rebuttal. My example distinguished a a difference between our examples mathematically. He calls it flawed logic but curiously enough he doesn't say why. I don't see how it can be possibly flawed. Maybe maths is flawed? But that's for another debate.b) My opponent starts straying from my argument in this point. I asked him to justify a pregnant drug users actions when the baby is born with disabilities, namely, severe underweightness and mental/physical impairments. This has nothing to do with abortion. We are discussing the implications of a fetus that although survives the parent's abuse of drugs, does not go through unscathed. This is unjust on the child, who will live a probably short life of pain. He has failed to provide a justification.c) My opponent asserts incorrectly that I believe drugs are the source of all evils. I have no idea why he thinks this, but for the purposes of this debate, all prior beliefs should be ignored and we should focus on the matter at hand. Now, my opponent dares me to show that all ruined families are ruined by drugs. This is a grammatically hideous statement, it should be: I dare him to show that all families with drug abusing members are ruined. I advocate that drugs are one of the causes of broken families, but not the only cause. A study by Marina Barnard at Glasgow University[1] concluded that every normal family under normal circumstances receives a negative impact from a members drug use, sometimes so profound that the family never recovers. Its unsurprising really, science tells us that a human cannot use illicit drugs and not be harmed. That's why illicit drugs are considered as illicit. There is no safe level of use. What my opponent fails to see however, is that it is incredibly rare for a single person to be harmed by drugs. The circumstances to allow such a scenario are so improbable, they can be ignored altogether. For this debate, we will be real and consider the fact that nearly everyone who takes drugs harms other people, not the hypothetical possibility of taking drugs without harming someone else.#2 Users of drugs harm themselves involuntarilySo, my opponent doesn't know what I'm talking about, understandable. What I'm saying is that we cannot use my opponents system of correction to substitute for a decent regret justification of preventing a decision. For example, consider my opponents naive statement: 'people have the right and the responsibility to learn from their own mistakes.' We can't allow that to happen if the person cannot learn from a mistake. Its true, they learn they shouldn't have made their decision, but that is the regret at work. They cannot undo their actions, the damage has been done and it is pernament. That is what I mean by a life changing decision, one where you cannot simply learn from a mistake, you die from it, or get your neurotransmitters screwed up. #3 People take drugs thinking it will make them happyLook at my opponents hilarious claim: "The amount of drug deaths is only slightly higher than the amount of car deaths. Thus, this claim is invalid." My opponent seriously needs a math lesson. I'll gladly provide. When comparing fatality:nonfatality ratios you never work from absolute numbers, only percentages. Lets say that 5% of all drivers are involved in serious accidents. Now lets say that there are 10 million drivers in a certain place. 5% of 10 million is 500 thousand. Now lets assume that there are 400 thousand drug users. Lets also say that 95% of these drug users become substance abuses. 95% of 400 thousand is 380 thousand. So according to my opponents logic, since there are 380 thousand people negatively affected by drugs, vs 500 thousand injured by car accidents, then one is more likely to be injured in an accident than by drugs. What rubbish. My opponent clearly needs help with maths. Also, note his source: http://rt.com... It details why my opponents claim is invalid. And by looking at it, this maths example should not be taken as true, since there are now more drug fatalities than car fatalities, wow O_O. [2]#4 Teenagers Another hilarious comment/attempt by Pro! You should be a comedian! my original argument was that we cannot allow drugs to become available to teenagers. While some teenagers do manage to get hold of drugs anyways, the fact that they are illegal has prevented a higher percentage of teenage drug users. At the end of the paragraph in my previous defense, I stated that his rebuttal was amusing. What does he do? Pro ignores all the factual stuff and homes in on that statement. His only comment is: "Saying my rebuttal is "frankly amusing" does not counter anything I said." Well, feel free to ignore all my arguments Pro. It's your funeral.Rebuttals:1) The act of taking drugs does not violate right Oh no, what do we have here? "People are not entitled to happiness." Hmm. Flawed statement. If someone is happy, are they not entitled to continue being happy? Happiness is after all merely contentment. My opponent seems to think it is pleasure, which is understandable, but he assumes that no one has it. He is also one of the philosophically narrow people who claim that you can't be happy, but you can try to be happy. Nonsense, you can be happy, its not impossible, but it is hard in this stinking rich country. My opponent also says: "While drug users can cause their family to feel emotional harm, this is not a violation of rights." It is a violation of rights actually. You do not have the right to hurt people in order to pursue your happiness. Basic Utilitarianism. Others have the right to expect no harm from you, assuming you live in the civilised world, and you have the right to not harm other people. My opponent is very good at being funny, but I was hoping for a more... intelligent debate."I want the government to play no part in drugs" Well, that's your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that people who take drugs want rehabilitation. You are obliged to give them that since you didn't try to prevent it in the first place. Refer to article 1 of the UN declaration of human rights. Due to this declaration, we must have things like Medicare and rehab centres. More will sprout up if we give drugs to everyone, an utter disaster of health.2) My opponent suggests that we can avoid theft by making drugs legal... unbeknown to him, drugs also have a tendency to cause people to lose their jobs, fall out of school and have a life of wreck anyways, so solving the problem of 1 or 2 thefts, leads to 1000 or 2000 cases of unemployment and serious debt. The production of methamphetamine has been made more difficult by federal regulations aimed at controlling the flow of precursor chemicals such as ephedrine and pseudo ephedrine, so Pros claim is invalid. [3] 3) Gangs use any source of crime they want. Take one away and they get a new one. That's why they are so resilient. Making everything legal is a unconscionable approach to fighting them. But them turning retail will be disaster, as they will still specialise in crime in other areas funded by business.4) this is a rare case of vigilante justice actually working. We don't mind criminals scamming criminals, just so long as no innocents are affected. But it is still necessary for drugs to be illegal, people are only encouraged not to do drugs due to the law being against them.Pro is flawed all over, he has failed to negate a single one of my arguments, he also needs a maths tutor. Thanks for the debate Pro, and no offense but I would like to debate someone else next time. I wasn't really looking for humor here. Have a good day, Vote Con.[1] http://www.jrf.org.uk... [2] http://rt.com...[3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...