The United States should decriminalize drugs.

I. Intro I’ll mostly be going over the major points of contention and showing you why Pro has won this debate. II. Harm Principle No matter whether you buy my argument here or my opponent’s, I win this argument, and therefore, the debate. If you believe me and think that people should be able to harm themselves, via drugs in particular, then I win this debate because the government should not make laws restricting the right to do what you want to your own body. In the last round, my opponent likens drug use to self-harm. If you buy this argument, I still win because, as my opponent even states, these people are hospitalized for their self-harm. If my opponent wants to liken it to drug use, the same procedure should occur. It should be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal one. Therefore, drugs should be decriminalized and we should shift toward a health-centered model like Portugal. Either way, I have won the debate on these grounds alone. III. Choices Impacting Others Here Con essentially states that the harm principal does not apply because drug use has a secondary effect on other people. However, if the use itself isn’t directly harming others, there is no reason to make it criminal. In the US status quo, there are plenty of decisions we can (and should be able to) make that have some negative impact on others. For example, if a father decides to spend money on the new iPhone instead of paying to fix the hot water heater, his family is negatively impacted. If a mother decides to abuse alcohol, her family suffers. However, these are both legal. People act selfishly. Sometimes there are secondary effects from these selfish actions. However, if they do not directly hurt others, they should be able to make poor decisions. We do not need the government to protect us from ourselves. IV. Prison System Sure. Every inmate is “taking up a bed.” Con is correct. However, drug users pose little to no threat to the outside world. There is no reason that they should be deprived of their freedoms and basic human rights just because of a poor decision that harms their own well-being. They are non-violent (until being deprived of normal social interaction and immersed in the violent world of the prison system for an extended period) and therefore they need not be imprisoned. A shift toward a health-centered model would alleviate the issues in the prison system, help rehabilitate drug users, and ensure dignity to both inmates who remain in prison and the drug users who would be sent to rehabilitation facilities. This is a health issue, not a criminal one. Con questions whether regulation would occur with legalization (though this debate is about decriminalization; legalization takes it a step further) which is a ridiculous notion. Surely, like all other drugs that are currently legal, including OTC drugs, prescriptions, and alcohol, there would be a governing body which oversees and regulates potency, production, distribution, etc. V. Usage Rates Con drops my Portugal case study, which proves that decriminalizing drugs actually LOWERS rates of drug abuse. I again win the debate on these grounds alone, because Con’s primary goal is to decrease drug rates (which as I stated, has not happened in nearly a half-century of the current American drug policy) so if I can prove that decriminalization achieves this (and I have) then I win the debate. VI. Conclusion In this debate I have proven that the government need not interfere in our decisions to harm ourselves. However, if they do, it is not a criminal matter, it is a health one, so we should not criminalize drug use. This was the first pillar to Con’s position. I have cast doubt on the health implications of certain drugs Con decided to use as examples, particularly marijuana. Marijuana has massive health benefits and should be legalized for those reasons. This puts a dent in the second pillar. Finally, I have proven that decriminalization will reduce rates of drug abuse and help move us forward. This takes out the third and final pillar of Con’s position. Since I have disproven two of the three essential pillars to the Con position, as well as providing offense of my own, this debate has clearly been won by Pro. VII. Closing Remarks Thank you, Con, for a good debate. Thank you, voters, for taking the time and effort to put into it. If you are voting for Bsh’s tournament, no RFD is required, but if you have the time, I know I’d appreciate a quick one like “Pro wins because he proved x and y, while Con only proved z.” If you can do that it’d be greatly appreciated, if not thank you anyway! Emilrose, if you advance, good luck in the next round!