The United States should legalize all drugs

Con completely misinterprets and straw-mans almost all my arguments -- to the point of hilarity. For instance, a "drug zone" isn't a place where the "drug will stay," it's a place where people can use drugs. Drug usage in public would be banned. I already established that. There are multiple other means by which Con straw-mans my arguments, and I'll address them here. Next, judges shouldn't simply vote down the side that brings new arguments. There's no rule that says a rule violation is a loss -- judges should just consider the abuse among other arguments, and weigh it all; they shouldn't consider new arguments. Last round, I said "vote Pro on abuse." I meant, vote Pro on abuse in addition to others. Perhaps it was that statement that led to Con's misinterpretation. Onto the arguments:First, drug usage will decrease if legalized. I already said I kicked the concession I made that there'll be little increase -- "kicking" it means that isn't relevant. I changed my stance last round. Debate theory dictates that I'm allowed to change my stance. The kick is just missed by my opponent. Con drops everything else, including all the evidence I presented in favor of the argument that drug usage will decrease under drug prohibition. This acts as an internal link turn to the whole negative case. Vote Pro right there. Con's case is false because all of Con's harms harm himself. The point 3, "little increase of drug use," was never mentioned by me in Rd. 3 -- I mentioned it in Rd. 2, and in Rd. 3, I said even a little increase wouldn't exist. I kicked that before Con even addressed it. Con's logic is that if we legalize drugs, there's no penalty to deter people. But my source says deterrence is *not* at work. Quoting my source, "The drug laws are ineffective. The deterrent effect, which was at best only partial in the past, is swiftly breaking down and will probably prove even less effective in the future. Rehabilitation has always been a complete failure -- the prison system has served to perpetuate drug use, not to cure the users. Public safety has actually suffered because of the drug laws." [Source 1, Rd. 2] For that reason alone, you can vote Pro. Second, criminal networks. I have no idea what Con is saying here. The Taliban doesn't *buy* drugs, it sells them illegally. It only sells drugs because there's no legal competition for drugs. Drugs are responsible for an immense amount of the Taliban's profit. [4] If drugs are legalized, United States' legal drug trades will compete with the Taliban, and since people are more likely to buy from legal sources, the Taliban will lose profits. The Taliban doesn't buy drugs, it sells them, and it'll stop selling them if the US legalizes drugs. Third, innocent lives. Drugs won't stop the Mexican Drug War -- the *legalization* of drugs will. Drugs don't save people's lives, and I never claimed they do. I'm not saying the drugs themselves are beneficial, I'm saying the legalization of drugs is beneficial. I clearly showed how if the US legalizes drugs, it won't participate in the war, and US-based cartels will stop. Pressure on Mexico might make Mexico legalize drugs, and the cartels will be out of business, so the war will stop if we legalize drugs. This has nothing to do with the drugs, so much as their legalization. This is just a huge red herring. Fourth, crime. A "crime" isn't an action that's "evil or wrong," it's an action that is in violation of the criminal code. Drug cartels are responsible for huge amounts of crime in the United States. Legalizing drugs means drug cartels stop, and so they stop killing people and stop criminal activities unrelated to drugs. Fifth, the economy. I showed that the status quo causes a government expenditure of $41.6 billion annually, which is entirely removed by the plan. Furthermore, if drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. I also showed that prison costs would reduce significantly. Pro says drugs cost $180 a year -- obviously this is a wrong number, because if it's right, it's easily outweighed by my argument. How does $180 have a stronger impact than over $88 billion? Don't allow Con to change the number, because then I won't be able to address the argument. Furthermore, "medical use for drugs" is a defense, and isn't relevant to the resolution. --Secondhand impact is the means by which Con defends health and the harm principle. Let me get on with it. First, Con's representation of my counterplan is a straw man. My plan involves a ban on public usage of drugs, and usage of "drug zones" where drugs can be used. Drug zones are *closed* places where people can use drugs, so that it doesn't harm anyone else, just like Kenya does with cigarette smoking. A public drug ban will solve this. Furthermore, the fact that drugs are used more under prohibition turns this. Because of this, I win health and the harm principle. Con drops street drugs and children. Con concedes the framework behind the harm principle, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proving that drugs are an "other regarding" act. Vote Pro because the status quo results in more consumption of drugs, which internal link turns every single argument of Con's. Also vote Pro because the harm principle is the only force that decides government legitimacy, so government action should only be based on other-regarding harms. The utilitarian benefits of drug legalization and harms to the status quo outweigh all of Pro's offense (esp. lives lost; lives lost easily outweighs any of Con's offense, because of utilitarian calculations). Essentially, the government should only legislate based on "other regarding" harms, drugs don't pose other regarding harms under the plan, and my offense relating to lives lost, crime, and criminal networks causes such huge damage that it outweighs all of Con's offense. For all the above reasons, vote Pro. Sources:4. http://www.cfr.org...