The United States federal government should legalize soft drugs including marijuana, mushrooms, etc.

>>> Your argument for legalizing the "softer drugs" is that the drug is "less damaging to the health than a hard drug. " +++ This is an untrue assumption. I support the legalisation of hard drugs, but that is not what this debate is about. It's about soft drugs. >>> However although it is less damaging it is still damaging. +++ Everybody knows that drugs can sometimes be harmful. If someone chooses to engage in drug utilization, that is their choice. America is a land of the people and for the people. The Constitution uses the word "not" to restrict government 22 times. America is built based on the basis of freedom, not restriction. +++ Smoking tobacco is far more harmful than substances like marijuana. If smoking is legal, so should soft drugs. >>> A lot of people are completely addicted to tobacco simply because they decided to try it and now cannot quit. +++ By definition, soft drugs are not addictive. Of course, anything can be addictive: coffee, sex, etc. But soft drugs are not medically addictive like tabacco. >>> One of these reason is because tobacco is easy to get. +++ Marijuana and other soft drugs are also very easy to get. Depending on your environment, they are easier to get than tobacco. +++ If soft drugs were legal, minors would be virtually incapable of getting them, because that would be the law. >>> Also softer drugs usually lead to hard drugs such as speed and Meth. +++ It is an American person's decision if they choose to use hard drugs. Besides, as I have proven, soft drug legalisation, lowers the usage prevalence. In Amsterdam, as I stated, in round 1, soft drugs were halved in utilization. Also, hard drug usage is significantly more than halved. The 'gateway drug' argument is flawed. [US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Washington, DC: HHS, August 2002), p. 109] [www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm] >>> And other thing such as population contribute to crime rate therefor you cannot say there crime rate is lower because of drugs. +++ What! ? Their incarceration rate is 7 times lower, after legalising soft drugs! I've used two sources. You just said "nuh uh. " [Walmsley, Roy, "World Prison Population List (fifth edition) (London, England: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office), Dec. 2003, p. 3] [www. drugwarfacts. org/ thenethe. htm] YOU JUST TOLD A STORY THAT REALLY DID NOT EVEN MAKE SENSE. YOU ALSO NEVER REBUTTED THESE POINTS. IF YOU DO NOT REBUT THESE POINTS, I WILL WIN THIS DEBATE: *** The War on Drugs does not even work. If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't. [Arizona Libertarian Party] *** The War on Drugs costs billions (not trillions as I mistyped earlier) of dollars. [National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets," January, 2001. ] [http:// www. drugsense. org/ wodclock. htm] *** The War on Drugs makes it very difficult to win the war on terror, because they are both so costly and the War on Drugs uses national intelligence resources. [Commonsense. org = Can't Win War on Terror Fighting a War on Drugs] *** We spend 150 million more Euros than the Netherlands on crime annually. [van Dijk, Frans & Jaap de Waard, "Legal infrastructure of the Netherlands in international perspective: Crime control"] *** They're homicide rate is 5 times lower in the Netherlands.