The abuse of illegal drugs should be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I shall not be presenting a negative position; rather, as the negative, the burden with which I am today faced is one of clash. That is: the purpose of the negative is neither to justify the criminal justice approach (since the phrase "not of criminal justice" is used to indicate the status quo--not to force the negative into a corner) nor to present any alternatives to the affirmative's advocacy. The negative's only job is to demonstrate that the affirmative has failed to meet the burden of proof given him by the resolution--is is exactly what I intend to do. The fact that I may or may not refer to some alternative or moral principle is irrelevant to whether my position of the negative necessitates such considerations on my part. 1. Societal Welfare a. The affirmative fails to tie his value to the resolution, as he in no way demonstrates how illegal drug abuse is inherently related to public health. Prima facie, it would appear that an individual's choice to abuse illegal substances is a matter of private health, rather than public. There seems to be little reason that society at large has any intrinsic interests here. b. When explaining the importance of his value, the affirmative becomes rather convoluted, stating that "The Common good is the most important in today's round because when dealing with public health, because the greatest good is what supports the public health." As long as his explanation remains incoherent, we cannot accept "Societal Good" as the greatest value. c. By defining "Societal Good" as the greatest good for the greatest number, the affirmative makes it clear that this good does not necessarily extend to all members of society. Not only does this destroy the individual's incentive for entering into a civil society (by making the benefits of being a party to the contract entirely contingent on a utilitarian gamble), but it also contradicts the final assertion that he makes, wherein he states that the public health approach will allow "all people" to live a clean, healthy, non-criminal life, when, realistically, the difficulties of calculating and comparing the "greatest good" with respect to the "greatest number" suggests that his promise will not be met. d. There's no reason to believe that sentencing in criminal proceedings cannot include (or even be limited to) rehabilitation, meaning that his value, even if applicable, measurable, and achievable, is clearly achieved by the negative. 2. The Categorical Imperative a. The categorical imperative, being deontological [http://en.wikipedia.org...] in nature, is not at all concerned with consequences. This is, for example, why Kant tells us that, even in situations where there is a murderer at the door looking for a man whose location you know, you are not permitted to lie, despite the "good" consequences which may result from an action; therefore, to judge the public health approach as "good" by making the consequential [http://en.wikipedia.org...] appeal that it achieves the "common good" is to blatantly deny the deontological basis of Kantian morality. b. Look at each of his contentions. Nowhere in his case does he bring up Kantian morality or its applications to his arguments. It seems to be a well-placed ruse which ultimately goes unused, leaving the rest of his case without any impact back to the topic. c. Refer to the second formulation of the Imperative: "Act so as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In this case, the affirmative is not seeking rehabilitation for the sake of the good of the individual being rehabilitated; rather, he is seeking to use their addiction (and the curing thereof) as a mere means to the pursuit of a greater social good. Pro would appear to be caught in a contradiction. 3. "Criminal Punishment is Unjust". a. This contention doesn't affirm the resolution. Even accepting that criminal punishment is unjust, it would be a non sequitur to claim that affirmation of the public health approach logically follows from this. b. The affirmative is also making fallacious emotional appeals by turning the abuser into a victim of their addiction and of a cruel, dehumanizing justice system. Note the structure here, where the affirmative cites the suffering and long-term damage caused by the criminal justice approach. This is a mere lead-in to Sub Point A, which is essentially a rehash of his point about the severity and immorality of retributive justice. 4. "Global War on Drugs is counterproductive." a. Again, this is a non sequitur where the affirmative position is concerned. That we ought to treat illegal drug abuse as a public health matter does not logically follow from the mere fact that the War on Drugs is obviously ineffective. It seems to me that these arguments are defensive or preemptive in nature, which means that he doesn't actually gain any ground by making them. b. The question to ask is "counterproductive to what?". This implies the consequential goal of curbing drug abuse. Problem is, refer back to his criterion: the Categorical Imperative. This criterion, by virtue of being deontological (and therefore unconcerned with consequences) removes any positive impact that this argument may have had by nullifying the impact of his implicit "drug abuse is bad, preventing it is good" framework. 5. "Many countries have decriminalized..." a. The resolution neither explicitly uses the term "decriminalization" nor implies it through exclusion of a criminal justice approach. It merely distinguishes between a regulatory system, as advocated by the affirmative, and a disciplinary one, as may conceivably be advocated by the negative. b. Refer back to the argument I made on his second contention concerning how his implicit consequentialist framework concerning the curbing of abuse is robbed of any impact by his deontological criterion, which makes his argument about the efficacy of decriminalization--even if relevant to the resolution--quite meaningless. Thus far, it would seem that the affirmative, caught in a mess of contradictions and logical leaps, has failed to meet his burden of proof. As such, the only way to go is negative. See you in Round 2.