The United States should legalize all drugs

I had a great time today. I went to the Phoenix Mall for some outstanding iced tea, with a few ordinary glazed donuts to go with them. We then left to the Starmark Bookstore to thoroughly enjoy ourselves engrossed in reading -- I finished Grisham's "The Firm," and went on to read "Three" by Krishna Udayasankar, about the origins of Singapore. Why did I even come to the mall? Because I want to increase my own enjoyment. I love reading, I love iced tea (though donuts aren't really my favorite). But imagine if the government just became a totalitarian authority that crushed and destroyed all our choices. Katniss Everdeen, in the "Hunger Games," tries to oppose dictatorship for infringing on a person's choices. That's what we all want, isn't it? Get to have our fulfilled, and to act based on our choices. It's our choices that fulfill our lives. And as long as our choices don't affect anyone else, it's nobody's right to crush it. "An unjust law is no law at all." Because I agree with Saint Augustine, I strongly affirm the resolution.Burdens:The resolution is a normative one. It isn’t an “is,” it is a “should.” There’s nothing to prove in this debate -- only a burden of persuasion, of persuading the judge to take a side. As such, there’s no point in the burdens of persuasion shifted towards one side. I’m arguing against the status quo, so I have to justify my proposal; Con argues for the status quo or a counterplan, so they have to justify their proposal. Thus, the burdens are split evenly between both sides. --My primary contention in this debate regards the idea of liberty to act based on our choices, as long as there's no harm to anyone else. That's why the government exists -- to enforce the law, a set of rules that ensure liberty. There's no reason for the law to exist except to maximize benefit and to minimize harm. Government policy is decided on the basis of utilitarianism, and the sole justification for government is to allow people to gain pleasure if there's no suffering. The idea is best articulated by John Stuart Mill's “harm principle,” which rests on a distinction between “self-regarding acts” and “other regarding acts.” It holds that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” A self-regarding act has no effect on an other -- only on the actor -- therefore ought not to be prevented by the government. The government’s regulation applies only to other-regarding acts. There are two reasons to support the harm principle. First, government policy is inherently utilitarian. A government’s policy seeks to maximize positive mental states and minimize negative ones, represented in utilitarianism. The harm principle is utilitarian in nature: it seeks to maximize positive mental states (of the actor) and minimize negative ones (of the others). That’s why governments should base their policy on the harm principle. The second -- and more important -- reason to support the harm principle is that the harm principle gives the government its legitimacy. The government can’t be justified at all, except by the sole purpose of helping its people. A government exists to maximize pleasure and minimize pain; its laws are made to ensure that people are happy. If a government doesn’t follow the harm principle -- and exists for some other purpose -- it lacks any legitimacy; therefore, the alternative is absolute liberty and anarchy. Either way, drugs can’t be illegal. They harm nobody except the user of the drug. The user of the drug takes immense pleasure in their usage, and harms no one in the process. To win this debate, Con has to show me how the drug would harm *others,* rather than the users of the drugs. If Con fails to do that, I win because of the harm principle and government legitimacy. Thus, any law that makes the usage of drugs that don’t harm others is fundamentally unjust. Justice is giving each their due, and a just government ought to make utilitarian decisions. Since drugs being illegal is fundamentally non-utilitarian, and against the harm principle, it is unjust. An unjust law is no law at all. Vote Pro because of that. There are also benefits to drug legalization, and some harms to the status quo. I’m going to discuss those to uphold the utilitarian framework I’ve been upholding from the first contention. First, let’s see the harms to the status quo:(1) In the status quo, street drugs are easily available to children and other people physically unfit to consume drugs. Government regulation will prevent this, and legalization will ensure that children don’t gain access to such drugs.(2) Drugs help the formation of criminal networks. Criminal organizations such as the Taliban gain much of their profit from trading in illicit drugs. The Taliban is a terrorist organization, which has caused multiple deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- and various other terrorist organizations form networks via trading in illicit drugs. Legalization of drugs will cause United States agribusiness to compete against the Taliban and other such organizations, and people are bound to buy from legal businesses, rather than illegal ones. (3) There would be little increase in the actual use of drugs if they’re legalized. I am not denying that there *will* be a change in the usage of drugs -- only that such a change will be extremely small. “The drug laws are ineffective. The deterrent effect, which was at best only partial in the past, is swiftly breaking down and will probably prove even less effective in the future. Rehabilitation has always been a complete failure—the prison system has served to perpetuate drug use, not to cure the users. Public safety has actually suffered because of the drug laws.” [1] If there’s no effect to drug laws, there is no point in their existence. Irrational laws are usually rejected. Since changing the status quo would allow people to have liberty, and uphold government legitimacy, this is the strongest reason to legalize drugs. [Note: I understand that this is not an offensive argument, but it still provides a reason to vote Pro based on the other arguments.] Drug legalization also has multiple actual benefits. These are economic, social, and also affect saving lives, which can factor into the utilitarian analysis. Some of the benefits are listed below. (1) Legalizing drugs would save innocent lives. In the Mexican Drug War, as a result of US intervention, around 1,000 children, 58 reporters, and 511 American civilians have been killed (US numbers only; information from Wikipedia, sourced from Fox News and Spanish journals). If the United States stops intervention in the Mexican Drug War, and pressures Mexico to legalize drugs as well, around 20,000 lives can be saved annually. Legalizing drugs will also stop the existence of American cartels, and US agribusiness can compete against Mexican drug cartels, thus significantly reducing the latter’s profits, and perhaps ending the Mexican Drug War. (2) Drug legalization would present multiple economic benefits. According to a study by the Cato Institute, drug legalization would reduce government expenditure by $41.3 billion. If drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. [2] The government needs the money -- the national debt stands at 75% of total GDP. Drug legalization would lessen this impact significantly. (3) Legalizing drugs would also involve releasing all those imprisoned for non-violent, personal drug use, thus significantly reducing prison costs. (4) There’s huge amounts of crime that comes with illicit drugs. Cartels, mafia, etc. have formed to trade illicit drugs, and that’s evolved into immense amounts of crime. Drug prohibition is responsible for the majority of crime in the United States. That’s an indisputable fact. Legalizing drugs would reduce crime, reduce illegal gun proliferation, and push cartels out of the market. Prohibition keeps the drug trade in the black market. Legalizing it would take it out, thus reducing crime. (5) Some studies suggest that people would use drugs *less* if legalized -- as noted in one study by the Cato Institute. [3] It’s possible, so drug legalization could even reduce usage of drugs, thus turning any health arguments, and perhaps all of Con’s offense. There are utilitarian benefits to legalizing drugs. Paternalism and lack of respect for the harm principle, as well as non-utilitarian decisions, are unjust. An unjust law is no law at all. For these reasons, vote Pro.Sources:1. http://www.psychedelic-library.org...2. http://www.cato.org...3. http://www.cato.org...