The United States Federal Government's War on Drugs should be ended.

Thank you, 16kadams, for this debate. I hope you'll reconsider your stance on drugs after this debate.Contention 1-: The War on Drugs has workedI'm aware that marijuana use went down, but there is no evidence that this is due to the Drug War. Correlation does not mean causation, after all. According to Milton Friedman, marijuana use actually went down in Alaska through legalization [1]. Additionally, much of the high drug usage occurred before people really knew how dangerous drugs like morphine were; in this age of information, we wouldn't have that problem. Besides, while normalization may occur, the many negatives of the Drug War are not worth this one positive.My opponent claims that "taxing [drugs] actually raises users, but he gives no evidence for this.He also claims that the drug war can be "won," but evidently not everyone is deterred from using drugs by the law, or else the war would already be won.My opponent claims that substance abuse is America's #1 health problem (which is really odd if the war is working), but a Google search reveals that this could also be stress [2], obesity [3], or a lack of sleep; that's not an invitation for government to regulate all of those aspects of our life. It isn't the role of government to keep us healthy, but to protect our rights.Contention 1+: The War on Drugs is expensiveMy opponent does not refute that drugs may contribute to psychic income instead of monetary income, making his monetary measurements invalid.My opponent claims that emergency room costs would increase, but this is doubtful. With legalization, it would be easier for addicts to seek help for their problems, and it would be easier for people to get information on safe use of drugs. Milton Friedman pointed out how a pregnant mother would be able to talk to a doctor about her addiction and get the prenatal care her child needs [1]; this would occur at all levels of addiction. Regarding aggravation rates, "[t]he violence is due to prohibition and nothing else. How much violence is there surrounding the alcohol trade?" [1].My opponent cites a study claiming that drug use may indicate exposure to violence, but it does not conclusively link drug use to more violence; in fact, they may both simply correlate with exposure to violence. Users would be less likely to overdose if they could get adequate instruction on drug use, but this can't happen without legalization.It's true that long term use of a drug can lead to personality changes, but the same is true for alcohol and many legal drugs, and yet alcohol is still legal.Now, the "few billion" dollars over the American population is actually about $700 over each individual's average lifespan, which is fairly significant.Contention 2+: People have a right to drugsMy opponent claims that "if drugs were legal, people would be allowed to do it anywhere," but this is simply not true. Again, refer to nudity, which is legal on people's private property, but not in public, and there isn't currently some outbreak of nudity in the streets.Again, the drug use itself does not infringe upon anyone's rights.The resulting violence could, but I've already listed many currently legal things that people have a right to use that can also accidentally result in harm to others; my opponent never contested this, and thus drops the argument.My opponent entirely fails to address the constitutional problems of the War on Drugs; it is entirely unconstitutional. Any anti-drug action is left to the states.Contention 2-: Drugs promote crimeMy opponent claims that the drug cartels would not be harmed long-term by legalization, but that is only because they have other sources of revenue. It would still weaken them in at least some respect, and the violence specifically caused by the illegal marijuana trade would still go away. Naturally, stopping the cartels completely would be much more complicated. I even quoted in my first round a cartel chief saying the drug war was "good for business."I can't read my opponent's source regarding child abuse, but I would guess that the drug most of the child abusers used was alcohol, which is currently legal, so that contention is useless.Contention 3+: The War on Drugs has many unintended consequences.My opponent has little refutation here. He doesn't address the numerous tragic deaths caused by the War on Drugs. He hasn't proven that increased drug use in a legal environment would raise crime. The drug cartels would still operate if their drugs were legalized, but that's only because they're involved in other things; the drug violence itself would stop.He also failed to address the increased corruption of policemen and law officials, the spread of disease, the conversion of many people from non-violent drug use to a life of crime, etc.Conclusion: I have shown how much of the violence of drugs, well as other societal problems, are caused by the War on Drugs itself, which uses our money for an unconstitutional and therefore illegal purpose. Therefore, the federal War on Drugs should be ended. Vote PRO!1. http://www.druglibrary.org...2. http://www.stress.org...3. http://www.cnbc.com...4. http://articles.cnn.com...