In the US, All drugs should be legalized

IntroductionGenerally a pretty weak round from con. He ignores substantial parts of my arguments and continues to make non-sequitors despite them having been exposed to him. He also insists on using C3 (no matter how poorly he argues for it) as an argument. I have complied and organized it with the others.Repeatedly my opponent makes the egregious error of assuming that non-violent drug crime is limited only to drug usuage. Obviously it applies to drug selling too.C1I conceded that many drugs can be harmful and that removing market distortions will increase demand. These are basic facts. However, what my opponent has utterly failed to do is demonstrate why these facts mean that drugs should be illegal. He merely iterates that drugs have harmful effects. I ask again; so what? He has not demonstrated that any body has the right to intervene to prevent an individual making a free choice which may have consequences for themselves. The individuals are choosing the utility gained from using the drugs over the utility lost from the health risks. Any body deciding that they can make that choice for other people and then forcibly enforcing this decision would be acting unethically (see ethics arguments).There are many products which are legal which are harmful to the individual; TVs and digital devices with small LCD screens can harm the eyesight, the bag of pretzels I am eating right now contains a dangerous amount of salt, Jersey Shore has caused premature mind rot in thousands and alcohol ismarvellous is very harmful. These are well documented dangers, yet the products remain legal.Should these be made illegal the number of users would decrease. Does this mean they should be illegal? Of course not! People should have the freedom to harm themselves in any manner they please.This argument must be considered completely irrevelent.C2Here my opponent shows a worrying lack of knowledge of how black markets work, despite my explanation provided last round.Black markets are formed by some sort of government artificial market distortion being imposed upon a market. This could be tax or a law. If there was no law decreeing the use or purchase/selling of drugs to be illegal to provide this market distortion, a black market could not exist, as it wouldn't be profitable and therefore smuggling cartels could not exist.My opponent makes a bizzarrely ignorant assertion:"Banning it may hurt the black market overtime as its goal (and has been working ok so far) has been to discourage people from using drugs, and this constricts black market profit."As explained before, the oposite is true. Banning drugs is the only thing that keeps the black market in existence.If we do decide to legalize but not tax (a position I do not support, and a proposition utterly irrelevent to the debate at hand), it would still reduce the size of the black market massively, as they would only be able to charge market prices, rather than at inflated costs as a result of the removal of some of the market distortions.This argument must be considered utterly false and self-defeating in that it is easy to demonstrate that legalizing drugs would reduce smuggling.C3My opponent drops my second and third reasons why this argument is irrelevent. This alone would be sufficient for me to consider this argument dropped.However, I shall also point out the foolishness in my opponents counter argument. He makes the non-sequitor leap that laws must be made by an authority to; that authority must be the government in this resolution. If the legal entity prevent legalization is a UN treaty, then that is the mechanism by which the resolution pertains. This is obvious, and frankly it is disappointing that my opponent keeps persuing this line of argument.C4The latter two of con's links do not work, so I cannot see to what "facts" I am responding. The first link is an essay with no direction as to where the facts can be found. However, I managed to find the supposed statistic; its source was "40. "MTV Show Favors Drug Legalization," Drug Policy Report 1 September 1994.". This source does not corroborate the supposed foundings. Therefore, in this case my source should be given preference.Furthermore, it is irrelevent whether only 700 where arrested for drug usuage only. It does not take into account the vast many more numbers who were arrested for selling drugs only - these crime figures would fall vastly.Con's latter two points are irrelevent; the violent acts commited under influence are the acts which should (and are) be illegal. If it were found that wearing a cone on your head made you more prone to violent acts, would it be sane to ban cones? Of course not! The violent acts are already illegal. We punish the act, not the conditions.My opponent has also dropped my argument that he is using the post hoc fallacy.At this point we can consider every single on of my opponents arguments thoroughly refuted.Counter-argumentsEthics.My opponent claims that because drugs cause crime (an assertion totally unproven - he has still dropped my false causality argument) people in support of the NAP would be against drugs. I believe there are two ways of considering my opponent now:a) he did not read my argument, which is quite rudeb) he is practicing some odd form of trollery, in which case I take my hat off to him.To reiterate in the hope he reads this time; any act which does not initiate force against another or his property can not be considered unethical. To initiate force is unehtical. There is no way that the use of drugs can fall into the unethical catagory, and no way the prevention of use of drugs can fall into the ethical catagory.His next argument also demonstrates a sheer lack of comprehension:"My opponents argument also lies upon it is my right to use drugs etc. Well first basic civil rights argue or prohibitive drug laws. Also there is no right if it infringes on life or pursuit of happiness"It should be obvious that at no point ever on the planet in any sane persons mind could the NAP be advocating a positive liberty as my opponent suggests it does. His argument here is incredibly bizarre. The NAP advocates negative liberties; that there are things you don't do to others, such as initiate force. As drugs do not fall into any form of iniation of force they must be ethical.I would heavily recommend my opponent reads my argument carefully for the next round if he wishes to have a chance of winning.Practicality1. Economic - percentages are irrelevent. If it is doing something bad (see above), we should be spending no money on it. Furthermore, your source does not include all costs of the drug war - the 11 billion statistic is not true as of 2009.2.700 statistic only refers to drug users. Everyone else referred in my statistic was (by process of elimination) a drug seller. They would be out of jail too.Thus the savings here still stand.3.The additional cost to users caused by a black market price distortions. The black market wouldn't exist if there were no taxes on the drugs (as has been trivially proven above). If it were legal and taxed (again something irrelevent to the resolution and something I don't support) the black market would charge at under the white market prices. ConclusionOverall, the last round from my opponent was notably poor. His arguments were weak and his counter-arguments a mixture of red-herrings and poor reading comprehension.