The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Con begins, "Individuals participate in society because it is in the best interests of all who participate." This does not negate my citation from the last round that individuals do not have a *responsibility* to society, and thus can choose not to contribute. Con's assessment that "Left to their own device, people are selfish, cruel, and miserable" is nothing but his opinion backed up by no tangible evidence relevant to this discussion. Con's only point here is that the government does, in fact, have a right to legislate morality because he feels we are all bound by a Social Contract -- a contract that is not willingly signed or entered into when being born an American citizen. Of course just as Con notes that my statement was mearly an assertion, the same applies to his statement. We have absolutely no reason to accept that other people have the right to dictate our lives to the point of controlling what we do and do not do put in our bodies. Of course considering I am the one advocating autonomy of the self - which is inherent - it is my opponent's burden to explain why the SC is mandatory. I, obviously, will explain why this is a flawed and immoral standard. Moreover, since this can easily sidetrack from the meat and potatoes of the debate at hand (the drug war), Con can make this much easier on himself by simply citing places in the Constitution that state the government has the right to impose on our bodies the way Con suggests. Of course considering the Constitution advocates the exact opposite, it will be very difficult for my opponent to make this point. Moving on, we come face to face with a slew of straw mans and contradictions in my opponent's case. First he challenges my statements regarding the prevalence of legal prescription drug abuse. The government's Office of National Drug Control Policy notes that abuse of prescription pain killers now ranks second only behind marijuana as the Nation's most prevalent illegal drug problem [1]. Of course considering marijuana is barely physically addictive [2] and prescription drugs are, my point stands. Con takes my statement that illegal drugs are 99% less harmful than the drugs that are legal completely out of context. In this sense, harmful = deadly. I pointed out that the number of deaths resulting from illegal drugs are only 1% of that which occur from legal drugs, meaning the idea of criminalizing drugs to prevent harm (death) is backwards and does not explain why certain things (like tobacco and alcohol) are legal despite their harms. Next Con points out that less people abuse heroin than alcohol, and even notes, "heroin is effectively harmless in comparison to something such as alcohol" which we see can be verified by sources indicating tobacco and alcohol as the leading cause of hospitalization, death, etc. [3]. However a few sentences later, Con writes, "[The WOD] is a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes." Con seemingly admits that the WOD is contradictory, pointing out that heroin is less dangerous than alcohol, and then says heroin is MORE dangerous than alcohol. Well - which is it? Furthermore, even if Con's only point is that the WOD is effective at stigmatizing drugs, just because less people abuse illegal drugs does not prove anything -- of course it'd be harder to obtain drugs if they're criminalized (which also makes them more expensive). This does not change the fact that drug use has INCREASED implying that even with the stigma, people are becoming wise to the misinformation spat out by the government and/or their own curiosity and vices. Perhaps most shocking of all was Con's statement, "drugs are perfectly harmless when 'prescribed' or 'prescribable' by a doctor." This could not be further from the truth, and I'm wondering if Con does not realize that the same drugs he describes as intrinsically harmful (i.e. certain opiates) are exactly what doctors prescribe, because they're pain killers. Addictive pain killers. Narcotics, sedatives, tranquilizers and steroids are all becoming increasingly abused in this country, and they're prescribed legally. Pills prescribed by doctors are among the most addictive of all, and moreover, the real issue is that many people are illegally selling their legal prescriptions. Next Con delves into the philosophical realm of government and writes, "How can you honestly trust a person to make rational health decisions for themselves when they openly admit that their beliefs directly contradict with the most basic rules of logic?" Of course Con has absolutely no authority or right to pass judgment on another's ability to govern their person. He is not my mommy; if I wanted to take heroin, he should have NO RIGHT to stop me, and of course hasn't explained why he should have the right to do so or even that his judgment is "better" than mine. Many people have had positive experiences experimenting with certain drugs. Con nor anyone else is qualified to determine mine or another's ability to handle the repercussions. Con does raise a good argument: one that ultimately negates and defeats his very own premise. In pointing out that most of society suffers from a vice of some kind, he begs the question why the government doesn't criminalize all harmful things or things negatively impacting society. For instance, the obesity epidemic is rampant. Why not ban McDonalds? Surely if his response is "not everyone abuses it," the same exact thing can be said about drugs. My friends and I are recreational drug takers; we don't abuse them nearly enough to even begin qualifying as problematic (we may indulge every 4 months) implying the same dilemma. Why should WE be punished for the behavior of others? We don't follow that standard in other aspects of society, nor should we. There are innumerable alcoholics; alcohol is legal. We have had school shootings; guns are still legal. As you can see, this argument from Con is not very strong and in fact one he negated himself. Next Con mentions that free will probably does not exist (I agree), but says regulating human behavior is beneficial. He likens this control over others to slavery and I agree with that too. By being prohibited to act freely against their desires (in a way that does not harm another), one is indeed a slave so I expect a more profound justification of slavery in the next round. I've already explained why this is not only immoral but illegal. We can't force people to act in accordance with the values of others; that's tyranny. When Con lists a link depicting alcohol consumption by country, you'll notice Afghanistan and Albania top the list of places with the least drinking. Of course, Con completely neglects to report that these are primarily Muslim countries based largely around a religion that prohibits alcohol, making this a moot point. In conclusion, Con's only suggestion was increasing the role of the federal government - something I am not only completely against but again something that is unconstitutional. Con did not sufficiently defend a violation civil liberties, and he did not even begin to address the complete destruction of the family and one's life when punished for drug offenses. He also ignored my points about the government doling out misinformation on drugs, the government's dirty hand in the drug war (real intentions), the cycle of poverty, our history's insatiable appetite for drugs, and most importantly the inevitable gang violence and other severe, violent crime that is completely detrimental to our society and distracting our law enforcement. Extend all of these arguments, as they have not been refuted or addressed. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com...