1st DDO Census Debate: Drug Legalization

Premise I: Pro's Case.Pro's case is built on four key arguments... Legalization brings in $88 bn in economy benefits. Legalization doesn't infringe on people's rights. Legalization reduces a number of Prohibition problems. Legalization provides education and fulfillment. These four are the core of his case, and we see his case stick completely to these arguments.Argument I: Secondhand Impact.I will establish here that several of Pro arguments depend on drugs being harmful only to the individual. The law should only protect us from having our rights infringed upon, as an example.To start, the effects of secondhand smoke are vast. As the CDC reports, secondhand smoke causes 34,000 deaths in the US from heart disease alone. Another 8,000 deaths are caused by strokes annually from secondhand smoke (1). A study by J. Barnova and S. Glantz show that the cardiovascular impact of passive amounts of secondhand smoke is almost the same as actual smoking (80-90% as effective as smoking)(2). Another review put the death toll from heart disease as high as 42,000 (3). It's assumed nearly 7000-8000 die annually from lung cancer. The impact of secondhand smoke also includes worsening asthma and between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children.It's assumed that there are 5.6 million children today who will die prematurely due to the impact of secondhand smoke on their bodies (1). Cardiovascular effects from secondhand smoke from marijuana is no different (4). I do want to address very quickly, before Pro brings it up, I have read the study claiming secondhand smoke carries no impact on lung cancer rates. This one study, up against the array of literature on the subject, only rated house wives who had very passive contact with smoking. This doesn't account for people with a lot of contact, or children living in a house with two parents who smoke.The impact of secondhand smoke is vast, and invasive. From Pro's own framework (how the rule of law is only to prevent our rights from being infringe upon) smoking does more to infringe on the bodily autonomy, right to life, and right to security of self and future, of anyone who is harmed by secondhand smoke from drugs.1] http://tinyurl.com...2] http://tinyurl.com...3] http://tinyurl.com...4] http://tinyurl.com...Argument II: Economic Impact.The economic impact of Drugs is huge. Pro brought up two numbers... The economic boost of legalized drugs, and the economic savings... The numbers being $46.7bn and $41.3bn, respectively. Equaling $88 bn a year.Pro has thrown up a framework around utilitarianism, which is fine, since I agree with this framework. Pro's argument assumes a lot of pros with little to no cons. Using Colorado as an example, tax revenue from marijuana is estimated at around $115 million for 2015 (5). When projected across the nation, this is worth $6.5 bn or $6.4 bn (depending on population-based projection or GDP-based projection.) Meanwhile, in Colorado, the cost of legalization is around $103 million. This means the cost of legalization (things like treatment aide, policing, and regulations) is almost as high as assumed profits. It negates Pro's own savings case, as well as the economic benefits case.This doesn't exclude the other costs... Drugs cost the economy $180 a year in lost productivity and death (6). Based on a tax rate of 27% for the US (7), the USFG and states lose $48 bn in lost tax. This is a 2004 estimate, and based on the rate of growth at 5% a year, we can assume it's anywhere from $200-$300 bn a year now, equaling $50 - $82 bn a year in lose taxes. The cost is based on the effects of drugs, so legalization would only make the issue worse by spiking the usage of drugs. Based on loss profit and investment opportunities, it can be assumed the US GDP is hundreds of billions (possibly a trillion) dollars smaller due to the exponential effects of lost capital.Another impact on the economy is medical. The US spends $170 bn a year on medical costs associated with smoking alone (8). The US State/Federal government makes up 43% of all medical costs (9). At this rate, cigarettes cost US tax payers $73 bn a year in costs. This is around $350 per taxpayer. Marijuana alone, having the same (if not worse) impact as cigarettes, would cost the government tens of billions in medical costs. The strain on the healthcare industry alone would increase prices on insurance and costs. This becomes a bigger issue, as many suspect Government to make up between 50% - 66% of all healthcare costs by 2020 (10, 11). Somewhere around a $100 bn+ price tag.Overall, the costs of drug legalization on the economy outweigh Pro's benefits. With Pro's benefits ranging around $88 bn, the harms reach $180 bn in lost economy, $150+ bn in possible medical expenses, and $160 bn in costs/lost revenue for the US. This is assuming marijuana isn't stronger than cigarettes, and leaving out drugs like bath salts, LSD, meth, and acid from the potential costs.Pro's own $40 bn savings isn't even accurate, as so much of those costs aren't drug-exclusive. The cost of imprisonment, making up so much of the cost, would stay the same because almost no one in prison for drugs is there solely because of drugs. I will get to that in Rebuttal II. The Police wouldn't see cuts because legalization costs almost as much as prohibition for the police force. The only remaining savings Pro mentioned was judicial, but since almost no one in prison is there solely because of drugs, this would also stay the same, if not get worse.Therefore, legalization would not save the USFG $40 bn a year, while still costing the economy $350 bn and costing tax payers $160 bn.[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal I: Education and Benefits.Pro's case here is, simply put, ipse dixit. "he himself said it..." Pro claims all of this, but it's all his personal experience and nothing more. We know people react differently to different drugs. While Pro may learn of the universe from bath salts, another may eat a person's face (12). The point is, Pro does nothing to prove this case is meaningful outside of his own opinion, or to prove that this, if true, is common and even relevant.The facts are that, even if real, pro's claim only stands for himself, and for the drugs he has taken. Other drug's, like Krocodile, hold none of these benefits. In fact, while marijuana may supposedly give Pro a better view of the universe, it increases the odds of schizophrenia by as much as double in everyone else (13, 14). Hallucinogens can cause long term effects like paranoia, visual disturbances, and even effects similar to strokes (15). All of this is contradictory to Pro's own self-proclaimed benefits.Pro claims drugs prepare us for life. Also ipse dixit. But more interestingly is the fact that long-term impacts from drugs cause harder, more expansive lives. There are many alternatives to drug use for preparing for the future, most of which don't destroy that same future. Do drugs prepare us for the tens of thousands of dollars in medical costs, mental disorders, and physical harms that those same drugs cost us?[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...Rebuttal II: Impact of Prohibition.Perhaps Pro's strongest argument. However, much of this relies on the idea that the harms of breaking the law are the law's responsibility. Having to spend more, or getting worse products. However, laws make ALL illegal activity harder and more dangerous (theft, murder, child abuse.) This isn't a case for legalization.To start with the first issue, the prison argument. Pro claims that drug laws have inflated prison populations. In reality, less than 1% of all drug convictions in the US leading to prison time involved only drug possession. And most of that 1% was convicted for other reasons, but used plea bargaining to only get "drug possession" held against them (16). Drugs make up a tiny percent of prison population, and most of them had criminal careers prior, or where constant re-offenders. In reality, most "drug-related" convictions where caused by the suspect being on drugs, such as DUI's, theft from people who where high, or drug-fueled attacks. Drug's are involved in a massive number of fatal vehicle accidents (17). Since legalization, the number in Colorado has jump up greatly. There was a 25-50% bump in DUIs, and fatalities from DUIs doubled (18).Pro also claims that prohibition makes drugs more available to children. However he never proves this other then claiming it. In reality, the availability of drugs more freely in the house and elsewhere in society makes exposure easier for youth. In Colorado, drug related issues among teens increased since legalization (19).A number of other arguments center around Cartels. However, Cartels won't disappear with legalization. They will simply become more aggressive, as they enter new markets and make harsher drugs the market won't touch. In truth, drug control efforts have reduced the demand and use of drugs by 25% since 2001, and the efforts against drugs have reduced cocaine use greatly. In regards to Pro's youth argument, drug control laws have helped to decrease use of drugs among youth by over 50% since 2001 (20).[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...[18] http://tinyurl.com...[19] http://tinyurl.com...[20] http://tinyurl.com...Summary:The costs of legalization is 8x to 15x larger than the economic benefits, and the effect on others is a far worse infringement of personal freedom then making drugs illegal is. The benefits of ending prohibition are also weak, and the negatives of drug are larger than the "fulfillment" they kinda might offer.