Drugs should be decriminalized

Thank you for your most excellent response! "I suppose ill take up this debate, as my last debate was a bust." Tell me about it... That happens to me a lot... So I'm holding you to this :-) "Sure, people still do drugs. Just like people still murder other people. I mean, has there been a single criminalization of anything, which completely deterred people from doing the said thing? I cant think of any." The specter of punishment does deter people from stealing whatever they want and shooting anyone they don't like. That's why we have laws. They don't exist so that people who do it can still do it and only be punished after they do it, they exist to scare people into not doing things. Obviously it won't stop everybody (although it is illegal to whistle underwater in Portland, and I don't think anyone is breaking that law), but any effective law will carry a punishment that is sufficient to keep people from doing the crime (though it is thankfully limited by the cruel and unusual punishment clause). There comes the issue with drugs. You probably won't get caught doing drugs, or if you do, you are probably already addicted, so no punishment would really be a very successful deterrent, short of something that would absolutely be cruel and unusual. It was the same way with prohibition. I know you said it was different, and I will cover that later, but in that neither are particularly enforceable, they are very similar. "These are all things that do not necessarily harm other people or their property, just like Drugs. Should we let these guys go as well?" Why is drunk driving illegal? Because it's really dangerous and it puts others at a higher risk. I know you will say that drugs do too, but notice that drunk driving is illegal, and drinking is not. "Why don't we do it? Because, we have standards, and one of those standards is to decrease the possible number of accidents and mishaps." Well, there are a lot of laws that restrict the behavior of children. Why the drinking age isn't 18 is beyond me, but children are different. But we're talking about adults here. The same adults who can smoke and drink. "But, much like alcohol, there are restrictions in place, to prevent just anyone going out and buying these." But these have to have a prescription from a doctor. To drink alcohol, you just have to be 21. "First of all, why would the drug cartels kill you for no reason? It would make more sense to keep you alive, especially if you were a customer." Okay, I'm sorry that I don't know the ins and outs of drug dealing. Shall I go do field research before I finish this debate? And the truth is that drug cartels are dangerous. You don't have to pay too much attention to know what's going on in Mexico right now. You can twist my point however you want, but I know I wouldn't want to do business with these people if I had another option... "Suppose that the Government produces specific factories to produce Drugs." We have a really really big deficit right now. How much do we care about profitability? So we can pay the workers at the factories more than minimum wage, but we don't have to make a profit selling the drugs. Alternatively, we could give it to private businesses and regulate it without tax until the bad guys have lost most of their business, and then we can move in and make money off of this. There are strategic ways of doing things. "Or has their business stayed the same, because it is more tedious and cost more to buy them legally?" This is a very good point. But drugs don't work the same as guns. Because guns are used to potentially kill people, it's necessary to run background checks and get licenses and stuff. But the illegal cigarette and alcohol business is not doing as well, and that's how the illegal drug business would be. "Can the same be said of most illegal drugs?" This is a moot point. I was comparing prohibition to this in that the law is clearly not doing a particularly good job of fulfilling the cause that it exists for. The government doesn't exist to stop our bad habits, so it doesn't really matter how bad it is for you. "Now, how many social Cocaine users are there? Clearly much less, to the point that i would guess 10% of people who use Cocaine are not addicted or dependent on it." This is a very good use of a circumstantial point. Yes, most alcohol drinkers are probably very responsible, social alcohol drinkers. Now, tell me, how many cigarette smokers are social smokers who are not addicted? Now, I know that doesn't fall under prohibition, but as I said, I was referring to the lack of success with prohibition, and not so much about the specific nitty gritty. "Which is why, many prescription drugs are prescribed by a doctor who knows your family history and medical history. These drugs are in fact dangerous in the right combination." This is a very good point. Still, how many people already die of accidental (or, perhaps, not accidental) overdoses? This is really not very different. And the great thing about drug packaging is that it gives us the technology to explain what it is not mixable with. And this wouldn't eliminate doctors, so it would still be possible to talk to them. Not to mention, it would be easier to talk to them. Even though the doctor's office is a confidential area, you still might not be comfortable telling the doctor that you've been taking illegal drugs, so they wouldn't know that when they prescribe you something that doesn't sit well with cocaine. If it were legal, then it would be quite a bit easier to tell the doctor. "To reduce this risk, the drugs are prescribed to people who actually need them, and in specific quantities so that there is no abuse of the drugs." Again, as I said, it's not the government's job to monitor my behavior. They let me get addicted to nicotine (though I choose not to), but they won't let me get addicted to marijuana (which, if I remember correctly, is actually much less addictive than cigarettes) or morphine? Why just one? "LSD, is a great example, as it can trigger a schizophrenic episode in someone who never knew he had schizophrenia. Other examples include things like Low or High blood sugar, heart/lung/liver problems, etc etc. The list goes on." Again again, that's not the government's problem. It is proven that a diet high in saturated fat and LDL cholesterol will put you at a much higher risk for heart attacks, but that's completely legal. It's proven that smoking puts you at a higher risk for lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc., but it's legal. "Wouldn't anyone agree that this would drastically increase the Drug-related accidents and deaths?" Yes directly, but not indirectly. Right now drug dealers sell drugs for a lot of money, and addicts will do a lot to obtain said money. They wouldn't need to do that at the scale they do if you could buy them at a reasonable price from a store. "Now, my opponent has previously mentioned that drug legalization would decrease the number of police officers." Yes I did. That was probably my least important point. "it is safe to say that the number will not change drastically, or at least as drastically as my opponent would hope." Fair enough... How does this negate the resolution? "Without this process, drug companies will go the cheaper, more profitable route of skipping that and going straight to clinical trials." We can still make them go through rigorous safety testing. We can legalize anything with restrictions and regulations. Point completely negated. "If we were to legalize all drugs, what would the restrictions be?" Only adults can buy them. They have to be tested and approved. Similar to current alcohol and cigarette laws (though I would prefer if they all were switched to food safety laws). I would write more, but, alas, 8,000 characters only allows me so much space. I am excited to see your response!