The War on Drugs is a failure

I suppose I will rebut each statement my opponent has made in the corresponding numbers. 1. United States drug policy technically began in 1914 through the Harrison Narcotics Tex Act. As many of us know, heroin and cocaine were first manufactured pharmaceuticals. Advertisements selling Cocaine claimed it as an "instantaneous cure!" for toothaches. Heroin sold by Bayer was also easy to obtain from "druggists." At this time drug abuse was relatively unheard of with a very low percentage of the population being addicted to opiates or other psychoactive drugs. There was a time where even Coca-Cola had cocaine as one of its ingredients. However, the date I would consider as the start of War on Drugs would be 1970 with Nixon"s Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Heroin use peaked from 1969-1971 with almost 15% of U.S service members in Vietnam abusing the drug. This was alarming to the Nixon administration and the main reason behind is newly coined "War on Drugs." To answer your question, drug use was not a problem before the 1960"s. Even in the 60"s we like to think of LSD use and hippies walking around smoking marijuana. In a 1969 Gallup poll, only 4% of American adults proclaimed to have tried marijuana. At this point the government was using scare tactics with unfounded claims that marijuana caused blindness and sterility. By the 1970"s marijuana use had grown 20%. Not much was known about cocaine and it was believed by some, that it was not addictive. Heroin use had grown by large percentages. This in my opinion is due to the lack of proper education about drugs. All around, there was no significant abuse of drugs. So no, there was no unacceptable level of human misery caused by drug abuse. 2. To answer this more quickly I will display some stats of drug use after the commencement of the War on Drugs. 10"15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt. Years after the declaration , cocaine use had multiplied by five. Marijuana hit its peak use at 1979. More contemporary, MDMA and other amphetamines have also alarming rates of increase. Similar to cocaine they have too increased by almost fivefold. I have a personal example I would like to share as well. My hometown"s demographics would show that majority of the population is middle-class and white. Most of the employed commute to New York City every day. I can walk outside and obtain a considerable amount of marijuana, MDMA, or LSD within 15 minutes. Now being in college in PA I found this to be the same. It seems no matter how much money is put into the War, I can make a trifle out of obtaining highly illegal narcotics. With this, I feel that discontinuing the War on Drugs would, for the most part, not increase the amount of users. As seen in my personal example and from the large increase of drug use regardless of the efforts from the government. 3. Since I do not believe rates of drug use would increase after the discontinuation of the War on Drugs, I see no reason that violent crime from drug users would increase. 4. Again with the belief that drug use would not increase, there would be no reason that more stress would be put on the healthcare system. However, a massive strain is put on the criminal justice system. Prisons are filled with non-violent offenders. The number of people in state prisons for drug offenses has increased 550 percent over the last 20 years. Of the 1,638,846 arrests for drug law violations in 2010, 81.9% (1,342,215) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 18.1% (296,631) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug. Percent of federal prisoners held for drug law violations = 55% Percent of state prisoners held for drug law violations = 21% Marijuana/hashish, Percent of federal drug offenders, 2004 = 12.4% Marijuana/hashish, Percent of state drug offenders, 2004 = 12.7% Since the start of the War on Drugs, incarcerated Americans as a percentage of population has increased from roughly .17% in 1971 to .8% in 2008. So, roughly 600,000 to around 2,225,000 incarcerated Americans. California"s annual costs to incarcerate an inmate in prison is $47,102. Needless to say this is a huge burden on the federal budget. On another note, small time marijuana users get screwed for doing nothing wrong. Felonies are handed out for marijuana. This is nonsense. Felonies ruin the life of someone simply trying to relax. Rights are stripped from felons and make job-finding nearly impossible. 5. Same as 3 and 4. I do not think there would be any significant increase in drug use. Also let me reiterate a previous statistic: 10"15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt. So the power surge in the cartels you speak of is highly unlikely. 6. I think it is safe to say majority of Americans would not use drugs just because they are legal. People that have no interest are not held back by the fact that it is illegal. Criminalization is not a deterrent of drug use, besides, drugs are readily available to those who want to use them, as I stated before. Zogby polling data asked 1,028 likely voters, "If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?" Ninety-ninety percent of respondents answered, "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes." The remaining 0.4 percent weren't sure. Though It is a small pool of voters, I find this to be true on practically every poll. 7. I do not think Afghanistan is a valid comparison to the United States. The two nations you are comparing are in such contrast it would be silly to compare them. Also, American efforts and the 60,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan have destroyed opium plantations many times over. This clearly has no affect. Just another point, I doubt that after halting the War, we would see opium plantations sprouting up uncontrollably all around the United states. 8. Just because the War on Drugs is stopped does not mean our children can walk into a Walmart and purchase heroin. Of course regulations will be placed if the War on Drugs is stopped, as I do think there should be regulations. 9. Criminalizing drugs puts non-violent dealers in a bad position. The government creates negative situations for small-time users and dealers for no good reason. Similarly the War puts cartels in a like position. Not to say that the cartels are not murderous scumbags , but the War in not helping this in any way. I understand that you believe that there is a level of success. But clearly that is not true. Their efforts to intercept drug trafficking makes no difference. Cartels still laugh with their massive profits. Though the DEA may get drug busts every now and then, it is a hopeless effort. In the long run any individual bust is rendered useless. The War on Drugs is a bottomless pit that the government is funneling millions of dollars into. Law enforcement is wasting man hours and lives for no reasonable gain. They could be fighting violent crimes. The cons of the War greatly outweigh the pros. WGBH educational foundation. Interview with Dr. Robert Dupoint Davenport-Hines, Richard Peter Treadwell (2002). The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics. New York: W. W. Norton. http://jim.com... http://www.gallup.com... Stephen R. Kandall, M.D.:Women and Addiction in the United States"1850 to 1920 http://www.monitoringthefuture.org... http://www.drugwarfacts.org... http://www.justicepolicy.org... http://www.lao.ca.gov...