Current illegal drugs (besides marihuana) should not be legalized

Good luck in the voting period con. I thank my opponent for clarifying a little deeper on what he meant on "association doesn't imply causation". I agree it is impossible to get a truly accurate data, however in my previous arguments it was interesting to see the states with lower GDP had a high drug problem. Of coarse, the illicit drug use is not the sole cause of the low GDP. As my opponent stated earlier, being in jail is also associated with the low GDP. However, to further backup my argument I had quoted the DEA's response about the impacts on society. My opponent's rebuttal to that was "association doesn't imply causation" When looking at Con's source, it clearly states "Do not site" because it is taken from the Wikipedia page, and may not be up to date. However, when looking at the wikipedia article, the article has received multiple criticisms. Such as the article needs additional citations for verification, and the article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Perhaps, the source that Con has chosen would not work due to the multiple criticisms. I had stated the "Do not site" problem, however con had ignored me ->"If the only drug users we can study are those in jail, we are sure to find a high correlation between drugs and crime, but this is only because it is impossible to find a sample of drug users not imprisoned because they are illegal. Therefore, we can expect drug data to be skewed towards low income earners, minorities, and criminals" Recall that when I brought up the prison statistics, 60-80% commit a new crime after released from prison, and 95% return to drug abuse. Now, regarding con's previous arguments "Firstly, it is crime itself, not always drugs, that is associated with lower GDP". (1) It is expected to see a higher crime rate when drugs are legalized, and as stated by my opponent, it is crime itself that is related to lower GDP. ->"It is not morally right to ban something because it is associated with real crime. " Ok, hopefully in the next round con would give sources that prove "Association does not imply causation". When con had stated Association does not imply causation, it is referring when there are completely random variables. When it comes increased drug rate and lower GDP as well as higher criminal activities, the argument for "Association does not imply causation" cannot be fully implied. Those two variables are NOT completely unrelated, and from a logical standpoint it makes sense of how increased drug use will lead to loss of productivity and increased criminal activity. ->"Making drugs legal would eliminate this drain on resources and could potentially raise billions of dollars in revenue from taxes. " Drug advocates often claim that if we used the money for drug war for other use, it would be financial windfall for the American Economy. However, here is the DEA's response. (That I had stated earlier) (2) "Ask legalization proponents if the alleged profits from drug legalization would be enough to pay for the increased fetal defects, loss of workplace productivity, increased traffic fatalities and industrial accidents, increased domestic violence and the myriad other problems that would not only be high-cost items but extremely expensive in terms of social decay" -DEA ->"By banning drugs, the government has created a black market that is not subject to the law, creating the link between drugs and violence. " And by making drugs legal, you have created increased violence in the public as shown by the statistics of the inmates. Remember my opponent's argument, "Association does not imply causation"? Apparently, according to my opponent's logic, it can be applied to both sides. ->"There is no clause in the Constitution allowing the federal government to outlaw drugs" Hmmm. . . "The Congress shall have Power To . .. make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (3) -ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 18 My opponent's last argument falls for there is a law that enables the congress to pass such law. The "necessary and proper" clause is made due to unimaginable circumstances foreseen by our founding fathers. Such as drug laws. So, yes, the congress does have the power to make such law. 1. . https://ncadd.org... 2. . http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...... 3. . http://www.heritage.org...