Resolved: Just governments ought not persecute victimless crimes.

Pro fundamentally misunderstands my argument. He states that I provided no counterplan, when I did. I stated that a just government would have to reform drug users rather than punish them. Just because I didn’t put a big sign that says “Counter-plan here! ” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been painfully clear that I was going for that. Also, he explicitly stated that I had a counterplan in his rebuttal round: “the counter plan of prison reformation” (although he missed that it was reform of the legal system as a whole). I will break down my arguments that I made in R1 into simplest terms, to remove any confusion my opponent might have caused. Tl;dr R1 Argument SummaryP1: A just government must be moralP2: The accepted moral framework by both parties is utilitarianSyllogism 1: a just government must be utilitarianP3: The current punitive system in the US does not maximize happiness. Conclusion 1: The current punitive system is immoral (S1, P3). P4: Reformatory systems maximize happinessConclusion 2: Reformatory systems are the most moral legal systems (C1, P4)P5 (Contention 1): Victimless crimes create an inefficient allocation of societal resources (and thus reduce utility)P6 (Contention 2): Legal intervention is cost-effective and helps society make optimal choicesConclusion 3: Just governments must stop these crimes through legal intervention (S1, P5+6)Syllogism 2: Just governments must reform drug users (C2, C3)Thus, I did in fact present a counterplan in my first round--that of a reformational legal system. Just because my opponent dropped it by not contesting it until this round (which is also illegal, as it is a new argument) doesn’t mean it wasn’t a counterplan. Let me defend against some of Pro’s accusations and attacks on my initial logical structure. I won't be gish galloped, so I will respond to only what is necessary to prove the fortitude of my arguments:“the permutation solves - ending the war on drugs and reforming the prison system is better than either one alone. That would be reason to affirm since it means just governments should not persecute crimes”Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as ending all prosecution. As I showed in my opening, Norway, for example, still prosecutes, but in a just manner. “Making these offenses no longer classified as crimes will reduce recidivism rates massively. ”A quote from the same article Pro takes his evidence from: “Out of all violent offenders released in 30 states in 2005, about 33 percent were arrested for another violent offense within five years of their release. ” Besides, the point of what I said about recidivism is that the legal consequences in a just system must lend themselves to fewer re-offenders. Any potential lowering by decriminalization is irrelevant for purposes of justice, because I was clearly talking about the structure of the legal system. “And, correlation is not causation. 34% of the Norweigan prison population is foreigners (. https://en.wikipedia.org......) while only 15% of the actual population is foreign (. http://www.ssb.no......). Perhaps Norweigans just commit crime less often. ”This has nothing to do with recidivism. I showed the causal link of more spending and less punitive measures. Pro didn’t refute this link. With regards to prohibition, I already addressed that in my counterplan: “The problem is that the current system does not focus on reducing demand. Reform, on the other hand, does. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, rehabilitation is effective. Drug addicts that are treated return to the system at a rate of about 40-60%, which is a [better result] of treatment for chronic illness (which drug addiction is) than asthma or hypertension. ”On “abuse of the whole just government term”: Pro accepted my context for “just” and waited a round to address it; therefore, my context stands for considering justice. He never presents any reason to disregard it even after his late contests. He accuses me of a No True Scotsman; but, again, he agreed with what I consider just; it’s a framework within the bounds of consequentialism. Epistemology and moral frameworks are not NTS-s. Final RemarksIn the last round Pro states, “Plus, just governments don't actually exist”. If there are no just governments, Pro cannot fulfill his burden of proof. Pro routinely ignored my counterplan and only attacked the status quo. As a consequence, my counterplan stands firm. I have shown that prosecution of victimless crimes is the best way for society to eliminate societal inefficiency, in terms of medical bills, workplace productivity, and more. I conclusively demonstrated that this intervention is also cost-effective, with 12 to 1 savings, while Con’s case would spread these billion-dollar problems to an even wider audience. The resolution is negated.