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

I would like to make an observation on Topicality: the resolution states: "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice." Take note of the word "illegal." Obviously, any argument pertaining to legalization is strictly NON-TOPICAL. If my opponent needs my to cite a credible debate source agreeing with this, I have sources on hand. NEXT: My opponent drops my whole case. Thus, I have fulfilled my burdens that the resolution dictates. Once the Affirmative has fulfilled those burdens, every judge MUST VOTE AFFIRMATIVE. NEXT: My opponent claims to make these drugs legal only to adults. Does this mean 18 or 21? My opponent provides no age threshold, and if they provide one n the next speech it IS abusive. Also, he keeps drugs illegal for kids, meaning the "thrill" of doing drugs illegally is still there. NEXT: My opponent cites gang revenue in U.S. cities. However, they do not take into account foreign gangs, like those in China. Any attempt my opponent makes to say his plan solves for all gangs is fallacious, specifically in the sense that he's committing a "Proof by Example" fallacy. Also, who is to say that gangs will not find alternate sources of revenue? According to The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, (http://www.thehindu.com...) a gang in India was transporting red sanders logs to fund themselves. TURN: The accessibility of drugs will go up with legalization, thus increasing gang activity and gang violence, leading to turf wars between gangs. Also, my opponent doesn't provide a clear way in which legalization leads to decreased revenue for gangs and the Taliban. The Taliban could still sell drugs for money. Also, crime would increase. It is a widely accepted fact that drug use directly correlates with risky behavior such as crime. Next; my opponent claims that those who were too scared of the law to do drugs will do drugs without engaging in criminal behavior. This is simply untrue. First, my opponent commits another "Proof by Example" fallacy by assuming that all (currently) law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. This is untrue. Thus, not everybody will refrain from criminal behavior. Even then, an increase in drug abusers would lead to an increase in deaths/ physical harms. The U.S. Department of Justice had this to say, "And when cocaine is combined with marijuana, it can be deadly. According to a study in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, an increase in heart rate due to cocaine was markedly enhanced if preceded by smoking marijuana. The dual use creates greater risk of overdose and more severe cardiovascular effects from the cocaine. An article in Schizophrenia Research found that up to 60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs..." This shows that cocaine alone can put people at risk, but when complimented with marijuana, it is extremely dangerous. Also, a graph shown in the article titled "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald shows that when Portugal decriminalized drug use, cannabis, multidrug, cocaine, and heroin use all significantly increased. If drug use spiked so sharply in this decriminalized country, imagine the increase in drug use and drug-associated harms in a world in which we legalize drugs. Legalization is certainly self-defeating. Next; it doesn't matter that alcohol causes aggression. As stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, alcohol has a 10% addiction rate. Cocaine has a 75% addiction rate. This means more deaths are caused by drugs, and more risky behaviors are caused by drugs, as stated by my Subpoint B under my first Contention. Next; under my plan, there is no stealing of drugs, so I completely eliminate the harms that remain in your advocacy. Also, I want to make another point. TURN: In the Negative plan, the government is giving up a plan it has put an incredible amount of money into and lowers hegemony, making many question government legitimacy - thus drug use will go up because people sense weakness in their government. Next, my opponent attacks the criminal justice system. I only use the criminal justice system to treat the drug abusers in the status quo, not future drug abusers. In the Affirmative advocacy, I have no option but to use the criminal justice system for treatment. My opponent does not claim any treatment programs whatsoever, and my treatment is better than my opponent's, which is... none. Although I am sorry for the man that was shot, I must point out my opponent commits an "Appeal to emotion" fallacy here. The man threatened the squad, and they, based on human instinct, shot. It's something called "fight or flight" syndrome. They chose, obviously, fight. Next, my opponent claims that I state the harms associated with drugs have to do with our treatment of them. This is wrong. I state there are separate harms with treatment in the status quo. The harms caused by drug abuse are independent. Next, drugs ARE life-destroying. Note that this next claim is not an appeal to emotion, just an argument. Almost a year ago, my friend was driving down the highway. He was sober in every way, and a cautious driver. Then, he was hit by a man who driving under the influence of cocaine. He was killed. That is life-destroying, and a true story. Next, my opponent cites an article talking about how heroin is hard to get addicted to, and doesn't change performance. I will concede that heroin is difficult to get addicted to. That does not mean people don't get addicted often. I can personally tell you I know more than five heroin users. And before they did heroin, they got A's and B's in pretty much every class. Now, they do heroin. And they fail almost every class. I am aware there are outside factors, but I know these people very well, and I know that their environmental factors had no impact big enough to cause that severe drop in grades. Heroin will never affect everybody the same way, and you cannot expect it to. Thus, when using your example of the students and cops, you commit yet another "Proof by Example" fallacy. Let me recount... So far I have found 4 fallacies in my opponent's case. You cannot, by any means, vote on a fallacious argument. Also, I want to bring back the point of Topicality. Every single argument my opponent makes revolves around legalization. For one, I have already shown why legalization is a horrid idea. On top of that legalization is non-topical because of the wording of the resolution, "The abuse of illegal drugs..." Thus, non-topical arguments cannot be evaluated/voted upon. Thus, my opponent has no case or framework to stand upon. Also, my opponent provides no Value or Criterion. This forces him to accept mine. I have shown throughout my arguments that he cannot achieve my Value of societal welfare because he has negative impacts associated with consequentialism that outweigh any positive benefits, if he has any. Due to theory in debate, I urge the Negative not to introduce new arguments in his next speech. If he does, it is extremely abusive. Once again, I want to push the point that all of my opponent's arguments are non-topical, and he has no arguments to stand upon. This, by all standards, MUST be voted upon.