New Member Tournament: Drug Legalization

Thanks seraine. In advance I appologize for my sub standard argument, school has really taken a toll on my free time. Now I will do a quick rebuttal of my Opponents case, followed by my argument. I am also leaving Marijuana out of this debate (my Opponent agreed in a PM that I could do that).Drugs and CrimeThis I feel will become an important point of contention for both my Opponent and I. While I will be providing evidence as to how drug usage causes crime, one needs only to use their common sense. Drug usgae harms our ability to make rational decisions, so logic alone (not to mention the evidence) shows us that they would cause us to make more irrational decisions, including criminal ones.According to the National Center for Victims of Crime[1] "In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes. "Pro shows us an interesting chart linking temperature and piracy, in an attempt to show us that correlation does not equal causation. While this is true, correlation, when coupled with logic, does equal causation. Logic tells us that pirates and temperature are not liknked. Conversly, logic DOES tell us that rational people are less likely to commit crimes, and since drugs harm our rational abilities, it's easy to see that they cause crime. You can turn the crime argument to my side. My Opponent even concedes that"Obviously there will be some who commit crimes due to the effects of drugs". This statement invalidates his entire argument that drugs do not cause crime. Even if they cause a small amount of crime, they still cause crime and thus the argument goes to me. His New York evidence is not enough to assess the situation as a whole, being as it's only one city, and regardless of that it shows that 14% of drug related crimes were caused by the drug affects themselves, thus supporting my side. 2. Not governments' role"What gives the government, a casual observer, the right to control what someone else ingests, especially if it harms no one else?"This seems to be the under-lying philosophy behind not only my Opponents case, but the mentality of drug legalization as a whole. First of all, drugs do harm others. Even discounting their links with crime, drugs cause people to put their time and money to a harmful use. This harms society as a whole, and the government has an obligation to protect society. Pro tries to show that the same logic for drug criminalization could be applied to obesity. Unfortunately, this analogy fails. First of all, a government intervention into the diets of obese people is infeasible because it is unenforceable to say the least. How on Earth could the government even enforce such laws applying ONLY to obese people? (as opposd to drug laws, which apply to everyone). Not to mention that this is creating a suspect class of obese people, and thus doesn't apply. Pro claims that "You can do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others in the process." Suprisingly, I (for the most part) agree with this. However where we differ is our perception of harm. The direct harms to others can be seen in the crime caused by drug usage. However a more obscure and sinister harm to society exists in the harms to the drug user themselves. Drug addiction takes a healthy, rational person, and turns them into a societal dependant. Surely things so harmful to society should be criminalized by society. His Car analogy also fails. The reason that we can decide what color to paint our cars any color is because it does not harm anyone else. Now imagine if we decided to paint our car a chrome so bright, that when the sin reflects off it, it temporarily blinds people and causes them to crash. Surely if people ever started doing something like that, it ought to be repressed for the safety of others. The same can be said with drugs, as they symbolically blind peoples ability to make proper decisions, and harm not only the user but those around them.What is the governments role?The government's role is to protect society and it's people. For my Cross-ex, I ask you the exact same question along with a few more. 1. Do drugs have any positive affects on society?2. Should we have laws at all? If so, why? If not, why not?3. What does the United States gain from implementing your case? What is the advantage and impact? How does it outweigh?ImmoralPro's reasoning is off here. He seems to think that it is immoral for the government to criminalize something that harms society. Why? If this is the case, than why have laws at all? Not to mention that the "small group of people" is the majority. A 2009 CBS news poll[2] found that 58-31%, Americans opposed legalizing Marijuana. Or, according to Gallup[3], they oppose legalization 54-44%. Either way, the majority is opposed to my Opponents plan, so his appeals to oppression fall. With his plan comes oppression to the majority. These polls of course only show Marijuana. Legalization of the other drugs is simply out of the question for most. Exceptions:Even if you feel I have failed to refute my Opponents arguments, since the rules specifically state "Pro will argue that it is best that all drugs should be legalized.", if I can show even one example that does not fit my Opponents arguments, then you must vote Con. There is one drug, whos sole purpose is crime. One drug, that even by my Opponents strange viewpoint must be criminalilzed. One drug that directly infringes on peoples rights, even by my Opponents standards. That drug is Rohypnol, more commonly known as that date rape drug. The sole purpose of this drug is to, as the name implies, rape people! This quite clearly infringes on their rights, and there can be no justification for its use. Sinc my burden of proof is to argue that "only some or no drugs should be legalized.", even if I have failed to refute my Opponents arguments, unless he gives a justification for legalizing Rohypnol for "personal consumption", the Con side still wins this round. Vote Con!Sources:1. http://www.ncvc.org...2. http://www.cbsnews.com...3. http://www.gallup.com...