illicit drugs should be legalised

Rebuttals: O1. Users of drugs harm other people involuntarily a. My opponent says himself that these statistics are in a country where drugs are already illegal. Clearly, drugs being illegal has not helped to solve this problem at all. Next, he goes to say that the amount of DUI deaths will "skyrocket." He gives no evidence to support this claim. He simply assumes its truth. I would like to relate his logic to something similar: the recent bans on texting while driving. By his logic, the amount of texting-related crashes should have dramatically decreased after texting while driving was banned. "Yet a new study by researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) finds no reductions in crashes after laws take effect that ban texting by all drivers" (1). The article goes to say that crashes have actually increased in several states, and has several graphs as well. So, if applying these laws had no effect other than slight increases, what reason is there to assume that legalizing drugs would have any effect on crash rates? b. Fetuses are not truly living people with legal standing, so a pregnant parent doing drugs violates no rights, even if it is stupid and harms herself more than anyone else. However, since my opponent is opposed to abortion, I propose we abandon this point for the sake of staying on topic. His choice. c. In blaming drugs for the parents' negligence and abuse, my opponent actually sanctions this reprehensible behavior and blames the drugs, not the people. Neither drug legalization or criminalization are ever going to change the fact that some people are naturally cruel and should not be raising children. What my opponent forgets with his argument, is that people commit crimes and acts of stupidity. Not drugs. He wishes to excuse. When one takes drugs, they are aware of the possible consequences, and are responsible if they occur. O2. Users of drugs harm themselves involuntarily My opponent begins by stating that the choice to take drugs is not a free decision, because there were outside influences. The simple problem with this claim is that all choices are affected by outside influences. For example, I might be out of milk, so I would choose either to stay home or go to the store and buy the milk. Let's say I chose to buy the milk. By my opponent's logic, I should have been 'protected' from having to make this choice because it wasn't really my decision. But while it may have had outside influence, it was still my free decision. The same goes for drugs. The user may have been influenced, but he freely made the choice to get drugs. The regret factor is actually proof that drug legalization would not be a bad thing. People like to think that under legalization, suddenly everybody would become an addict. But since people regret using drugs, that means they can understand the consequences that go beyond legal standing. That means that people actually can make the right decision without being forced. Nobody forced regret upon them. The regret came from within, because they came to a realization of their own. Regret is a good thing. It is a way for people to know they made a mistake, and more importantly learn from their mistakes. We are not obligated to help people who cause their own problems. We do not have the right to coerce people into conforming with our way of life. A society built on force is a society of anti-freedom, anti-equality, and anti-morality. O3. People take drugs thinking it will make them happy While my opponent hasn't sourced his science, I believe what he says is correct, so I will continue with the rebuttal. My opponent is correct when he says that drugs are an inefficient means of happiness. He also says that the user is not aware of this. These are not justifications for a drug being illegal. If one were to purchase a car (spending much more money than on drugs) and find that they don't like the car, should the car be illegal to purchase? If one were to go to McDonalds and buy french fries, only to find that there are 3 fries fewer than the last time they came, should the fries be illegal? The answer is of course "no", because such claims are absurd. The analogy applies to drugs as well. O4. Teenagers Nothing will ever stop teenagers from getting drugs. The difference is whether they get them from underground or legitimate operations. Contentions: C1. The act of taking drugs does not violate rights The responsibility of the government, first and foremost, is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the act of taking drugs, nobody's right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness has been violated. In fact, the user has taken advantage of his rights. He has the liberty to do anything as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. So he does drugs. He also takes advantage of his right to the pursuit of happiness, since drugs make him happy. That's why people take them. And while I myself wouldn't make such a decision, it does not harm anyone, and should not be illegal. C2. The failure of prohibition In 1920, the government made alcohol illegal. The thinking was that people would be healthier, and alcohol-related crime would go down. It failed horribly. Alcohol was readily available anyway, but it was no longer controlled by respectable businessmen. It was run by the mafia. Organized crime rose in power, to brew alcoholic beverages and protect other brewers, since the government wouldn't. One man that rose out of prohibition was Al Capone, arguably the most infamous gangster of all time. In 1933, the government realized they had made a horrible mistake, and prohibition ended (2). While the drugs we are discussing in this debate are more dangerous that alcohol, on a philosophical level there is no difference. We are making the same mistakes, and pretending we are helping people. C3. More power to gangs/cartel As I mentioned in my last argument, prohibition gave rise to the mafia. The War on Drugs has given rise to something else: the Mexican drug cartel. In Mexico, the Mexican drug war has various cartels fighting each other and the Mexican government, in what is basically an all-out war. The cartels make an estimated 39 billion dollars annually. The cartel does not stick to Mexico, however. A drug known as black tar heroin has made its way into the U.S. black market due to the cartel. The cartels are known to recruit in American high schools. A 14 year old from San Diego was turned into an assassin by the cartel (3). If drugs are legalized, the cartel will be obsolete, as legitimate companies will be able produce and sell drugs. The competition will no longer be the violence we have today, but businesses responding to the needs of consumers in an attempt to make a greater profit than their competitors. This is evidenced in the alcohol industry by Miller and Budweiser, for example. C4. Users cannot be helped if they were scammed Let's say somebody wants to get some drugs. They find a dealer, make the deal, and discover that the drugs are much less potent that what they were told. Maybe it was a simple mistake on the part of the dealer, or maybe it was fraud. In the world of legal products, One could go and get a refund if it was a simple mistake. If it was fraud, however, the customer might have to sue whoever sold them a faulty product. But in the world of illegal drugs, one couldn't sue their dealer. If they did, they would announce to the government that they went and bought an illegal substance. And then they will likely go to jail. Is it fair that somebody would have to face legal punishment just because they wanted to report fraud? Of course not. And if drugs were legal, this problem would cease to exist. Sources: 1. http://www.iihs.org... 2. http://www.cato.org... 3. http://www.cnn.com...