Drug Legalization

1)Cost My opponent states, "I am against the drug war on principle, and as such am against it no matter how much money is spent on it. " This clearly shows that there is no reason in arguing this point as it is basically a strawman for the real argument at hand. He also states, "I concede that it is very likely that the gangs and violence could probably be reduced by following a more sensible plan in the war on drugs. " 2)Society My opponent says that my arguments are theoretical and that the empirical evidence supports that prohibition increases crime. This, however, is false on two levels. First, this is a generalization fallacy. These murder rate trends do not show that prohibition increases crime, they show that the method of prohibition that we used increased crime. To believe that the only option are what we are doing and legalizing would be a false dichotomy. Second, my opponent has completely ignored the empirical evidence from Sweden, Japan, and the Netherlands. These nations have all shown how to do it the right way, and they were all ignored. 3)Drugs and Crime Let us simply look into my opponent's source, shall we [1]? "The scientific studies conducted over the past two decades provide evidence which tends to show that drug use is one of a number of factors that may explain why some people commit criminal acts. " So the report comes right out and says that drugs ARE a factor. It also says, "Many people who have developed an addiction to expensive drugs such as heroin and crack/cocaine and cannot afford their habit will commit crimes to buy drugs. However, they do not represent all or even most illegal drug users, especially in the case of marijuana users. " We've already tossed aside marijuana, so the way in which marijuana dilutes to studies must be considered. The research clearly shows that there is a degree of causation between the two (which is dependent upon whether the person is an addict or not). 4)Success "I concede that there is good ways to lower drug usage. " My opponent has conceded this point. 5)Morality First, I never claimed that the government should protect you from yourself. That is a strawman. I based an argument around, not what I believe or claim, but what my opponent said he believed, "The government is supposed to protect you" (from his R2). My opponent then commits a slippery slope fallacy by suggesting that because there is a fine line, that it must be way off to the extreme. Such is not the case and can be proven to not be the case by applying it to his own argument of protecting from other. Where is the line? To what degree? Should we protect them from people that say mean things about them? Should we protect them from people that look at them in a mean way? As such, that clearly shows that using that kind of reasoning is faulty. As such, my opponent gives no reason at all as to why we should accept that government's job is to protect you from others and not simply protect you in general. Any government by the people, ultimately, has the responsibility to do what the people want. There are currently two main schools of thought of the people on what the government's role should be. One Is to protect the people, flat out, not just from others, not just from themselves, but to protect the people. In that case, my arguments of keeping dangerous drugs illegal, still fits that responsibility. The other is the libertarian view (but not anarchist) that the government's only role is to protect people's rights. One of the key tenets of libertarianism is that your rights are absolute. They cannot be taken away, only infringed upon. Even if government says "you can't have free speech," you still have it. It isn't gone and hasn't been taken away, they are merely infringing upon it. My opponent seems to view that you can give up your rights (by saying "You made the choice, and you are now addicted"). Like if the people of the USA voted (made the choice) to give up the right to free speech, they would simply no longer have that right. That goes entirely against libertarianism, in that you will always have that right and government (and no one) can take it from you, only infringe upon it. My opponent also goes to suggest that the majority of drug users are not addicts. However, his source is, once again, including marijuana users in its numbers. We've already established that I'm not arguing against ALL drugs, and so grouping them together to get a favorable statistic is a fallacy. My opponent then links to a rather bias source, suggesting that the government welfare pays 75% to administrators. Looking at the source, it just makes this up. In fact, the actual numbers are about 10% to admin [2], according to the CATO institute, which, if anything, would be bias in favor of inflating that number. Medicare is only 4% [3]. So summing up what has been said over the course of this debate, every argument, other than the subjective morals has pretty much been either dropped or conceded. My opponent has admitted, "I concede to my opponent that the War on Drugs can have a relatively low cost and a relatively high success rate. " And in regards to the only thing left, morality, my opponent has given no reason to accept that government's job is to protect you from others. I've shown that whether you believe the government should be protecting its people, or protecting their rights, the illegalization of some of the more addicting drugs does fall under their responsibility. I have also shown that it is possible for the government to be successful in such an endeavor. I suggest a Con vote, Thank you [1] . http://www.parl.gc.ca... [2] . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... [3] . http://www.consumeraffairs.com...