The U.S. should legalize all drugs

For this round, I'll do a little weighing. OverdoseIn regards to the idea that people are unlikely to read warning labels, Pro argues "Well its unlikely that they'll just take a random amount when the correct number if right there in front of them. " I have a few responses. --> He seems to be operating under some absurd illusion that people will use currently ilicit drugs responsibly. The reason they are illegal is because they harm peoples ability to rationalize and have no accepted Medical usage. The entire purpose of them is irresponsibility. --> The overdose impaact is turned to Con for two reasons: 1. Logically, criminalization deters usage as shown in the Heritage Foundation card and the McDonough Card. Thus maximal harm reduction flows to the Con side, because the Con is the side preventing usage. 2. Pro ignores the forbidden fruit effect. Without legal deterrent, when people see the proper dosage for them to take, they will liikely take more. The reasoning in this lies in a few reasons, namely that people won't take it as seriusly as they ought to (particuarly after a few drinks or pills or whatever) and a desire to get even more "buzzed". 3. The Negative counterplan of legalizing some drug kinds has been conceded to. My Opponent argues: "Legalizing cocaine and nothing else (the con stance) might solve 43% of overdoses, but legalizing BOTH (the pro stance) would solve 86%. " I would first prefer to let it be known that this is not the official position I'm obligated to advocate, rather my way of showing that there are better ways than full legalization. In response to his objection, my question is: why? The overdoses from drug admixture can only come from mixture. If one of the substances in the deadly pairing is legal and has the warnings, than the overdosage can be prevented. If the users do not read them, then they wouldnt read them if they were both legal anyway. Since his only objection to my counterplan is unfounded, the overdose point clearly goes to the Con side. Remember if you believe his argument that we could print warnings on the packaging of drugs and prevent overdose, we do not need to legalize all drugs for this advantage to happen and it goes to Neg. If you do not believe his argument due to its multiple holes, than the advantage is lost and a Con vote is given. Pro argues that drugs are only deadly because they're illegal, but this is incredibly misleading and fallacious. Everyone knows the harmful affects of drugs (the reason they are illegal to begin with), and the Mcdonough card tells us this as well. Ignore this argument because his only advantage has been turned against him. Pros Purity argument was addressed in the "Adulterants" section. AdulterantsPro argues "Drug dealers add substances to their drugs to dilute it, making it look like there's 10 grams of crack when there's really just 5"--> I wonder how he came across these statistics. The only card he brought up for this argument is referring to European drug markets, not American ones and doesn't even argue that individual drug dealers change their substances. The Resolution specifies the United States only. --> Furthermore, the Pro has argued no advantage. Remember that Tabacco and Alchohol have vastly different kinds on the market, why should drugs be different? He concedes to my logic that drug dealers will not purposely harm their customers by changing the purity of their drugs. Maybe variations exist across the Market, but he has not shown specific drug dealers to alter their substances, so the impact is practically non existant. In fact this can be turned to the Con side, because whatever changes the Drug Dealers make they will at least be consistent (to avoid harming their customers). A legal market would lead to people buying drugs from a variety of sources with varying purity. People uninformed about drugs would likely change from purity to purity to test it out, and so this impact is maximalized if you affirm. --> Crime caused outweighs, we're talking about perfectly innocent people being robbed, raped, and murdered by people on drugs. While I do not want drug addicts to die, their deaths are resulting from their own actions. The moral highground belongs to Con. --> The research argument falls. He has shown no compelling interest for the private sector to invest in lessening the effects of drugs, so he is gaining no advantage. Besides, research is already being done and he has shown no reason save for the private sector idea to show that the research being done is not enough. I'm also not buying his Private sector argument, because the Government gives special privileges to companies to research with criminalized substances all the time. Please drop the research argument. AIDS--> Counterplan Dropped, and therefore conceded to. Impact goes to the Con. --> Pro objects that my counterplan is nonsensical, but he hasn't truly explained how. Legalizing the sale/distribution of needles is a far cry away from creating places where "drug users can hang out and use drugs as they please"Cartels--> Pro strawmans the Utilitarian argument. It's not that they deserve to die, as much as it is that they are violating the social contract, and if they are excluded from it (even through death) than it is beneficial. The average drug cartel brings massive amounts of crime to communities (which is the whole basis of his contention) and their removal is, in a strictly societal sense, advantageous. Also, please consider the logic that the Cartels will turn to other forms of crime. --> Pro accuses me of dropping the warrants. I do not agree, but I'll address them anyway. 1. "1. Netherlands sell marijuana legally yet have lower usage rates" Compared to what? The USA? Remember, the Heritage Foundation card shows us that usage increased in the Netherlands due to the Social stigma being eliminated. Pro has not shown legalization to decrease usage in individual communities, and logic shows the complete opposite. Decreased usage goes to the Con Side.2. " Criminalization doesn't prevent drug use, proven by teens being able to get weed easier than alcohol, which is legal" Theres the claim, now where's the warrant and evidence? Besides, Alchohol is illegal for teens. 3. "Teens will use drugs less because they would become "uncool" if legalized. " Again, no warrant or evidence. Recall that the Heritage Foundation card shows increased usage with legalization as does logic. Teens use drugs to get high and have fun, not to be "cool" (or, the "cool" aspect of it does not come from its illegality). Pro misunderstands the Heritage Foundation card. It shows quite clearly research from the RAND coporation indicating an increase in use. It also argues that since Marijuana is a gateway drug, a cheaper price leads to more use, which leads to more use of harder drugs. Even if you don't buy this logic, it hasn't been properly addressed and thus stands. " 17% of thefts are committed to get drug money. " --> 17% of thefts vs. 24% of violent crimes committed due to drugs. This argument is clearly weighed to Con. Pro concedes that drugs cause irrational desicions. He argues that social status can affect crime. Great. Too bad that doesn't relate. He doesn't attack my logic, so the argument goes to Con. --> Pro argues that Cartels will leave the USA rather than commit more crime here. Why? The USA is much wealthier than most of their home countries, so logically they would stay here where the potential gains from their crimes are greater. Vote Con just on this impact. In conclusion the resolution is clearly negated.