The USFG should legalize all drugs

Our experience is the source of all knowledge.Con’s analogies to sex with a minor and cutting aren't relevant or persuasive. Sex with a minor violates the harm principle. Cutting doesn’t. Sex with a minor is illegal. Cutting isn’t. If anything, we shoud treat drugs like cutting. Legalize it. Regulate it. Educate people on it. Get addicts help.The harm principle is a limiting principle. It only says what the government cannot do. It says nothing about what the government must do or should do. Just because something harms others doesn’t mean it must or should be illegal.Con cites three harms from drugs: clouded thinking, paranoia, and death. Neither of these states is inherently harmful. Some people commit suicide, because the pain of life is too great. For those people, death is positive.Others enjoy irrational thinking or clouded thinking or blankness. Maybe clouded thinking gives them a greater appreciation of clear thinking. Or maybe they want to cloud their mind because the truth is too painful.Different strokes, different folks.Con singles out heroin. Why? Heroin is an excellent drug. It is intensely pleasurable. It has medical benefits (painkiller). It isn't too addictive (it takes weeks for a physical addiction to form). Studies show that fast food is as addictive, and withdrawals from FDA-approved anti-depressants are worse. Every drug has side-effects. In fact, FDA-approved drugs kill 100,000 people each year. Is Con saying we should prohibit all these drugs just because there is a risk the drug will kill the user? That's absurd. We weigh costs and benefits. The benefits of using drugs far outweigh the costs. Most drug users agree. And most drug users aren't addicts. They're regular folks.Con says legalizing drugs will increase the consumption of drugs. But that's just Con's assertion. In reality, drug consumption is unlikely to increase. Most people who will do drugs already do drugs. And most hard drugs have very limited market appeal, so legalizing them isn't going to suddenly create a demand for them. Consider: Millions of people don't smoke or drink alcohol even though it's legal. And these people aren't going to suddenly do hard drugs. Also, consider the "forbidden fruit effect," the idea that people do drugs because it's forbidden. This points toward a decrease in drug use. Whatever the case, Con’s assertion is 100% speculation. It's conjecture, approaching nothing close to a clear probability.And even if drug use increases, the new users will be be folks who didn't do drugs when drugs were illegal. In other words, responsible, law-abiding folks, folks who care about their health, and so on. These are the sorts of people who won't abuse drugs, won't become addicts, and won't commit violent crimes. Meanwhile, these new users still receive all the benefits of drug use (intense pleasure, happiness, meaning, fulfillment). So if legalization increases drug use, it means there's likely to be increased benefits, not increased harms.Con says the average drug user doesn’t weigh costs and benefits rationally. Why not? Con offers no answer. Con also drops all the harms caused by prohibition. And Con drops all the benefits caused by legalization. Remember, we're not discussing whether drug use is net harmful or net beneficial. That is not the subject of this debate. The subject of this debate is whether legalization is net beneficial. Con completely drops all my evidence showing that legalization is net beneficial. That alone is reason to Vote Pro.That said, I'll give Con credit where it's due: at least he's consistent. And by that, I mean that Con is so adamant about prohibiting anything harmful that he even recommend prohibiting tobacco and alcohol... Holy fvck is that position untenable... Remember, alcohol was illegal, during Prohibition era. And guess what? It was a massive failure. It led to a massive increase in the mafia, crime, murder, etc.Con still refuses to give any specifics about what’s he’s advocating. So hold him to the status quo. Or hold him to a decriminalized regime where drugs are still stold on the black market, they're still not regulated, they're still dangerous because you don't know what you're getting, and all the profits go the illicit market, where it funds terrorism and Mexican drug cartels. So you can extend my cost/benefit analysis to the decriminalized world.Finally, Con’s syllogism is sh!t. If the government should protect citizens from harm, it should legalize drugs, because prohibition causes significantly more harm.If citizens are harmed by drug use in the status quo, the government should do its best to figure out how to make drugs safer. The evidence shows that legalization makes drugs safer, because the drugs are regulated, they're not sold to children, and they operate in a legitimate economy rather than supporting crime and terrorism. If the government should protect citizens from drugs, it should legalize drugs so that it can regulate them, lower prices, help addicts get the help they need, and lower rates of homelessness and prostitution and drug gang violence...There are lots of ways to protect citizens that don’t require prohibition. Legalization, regulation, and education is better than prohibition.