Drugs should be legalized in the United States

I'll over my arguments, then her's. 1A. Deterrance Pro: Many/most users feel the short term high outweighs the risk of punishment. The key word here is "most". This indicates that not everybody feels this way, meaning that some people did admit criminal sanctions affected them. Her own sources are showing you that some people are deterred. Pro: Justice.gov stats are only about HS seniors Thats false. Look again, it refers to either 12-17, or teens in general. Only one stat was about seniors, and even then, the source also said use increased among "teenagers", not just seniors. Pro: More people use pot now than in 1992 Now, after criticizing my statistic saying its only about high school seniors, she herself gives a source that only deals with 12th graders. She is contradicting her own argument at this point. Furthermore, since her source only deals with 12th grade use, whereas mine were applied to teens in general, you prefer my evidence which indicates that drug usage has dropped 22% since criminalization. Pro: Teens may report useage incorrectly So drop her source 19, since its heavily predicated on teens voluntarily reporting marijuana use. Furthermore, this isn't unique to teenagers. Adults may be nervous about admitting to drug use on surveys as well. So under this argument, we should invalidate all studies about estimated drug use. For the sake of debate, I wouldnt recommend that. Extend that to the G.A.O. report. 1B. Availability Pro: Less Dutch used heroin when it was in clinics She's not telling you everything you need to know. For one, the program only applies to Dutch nationals over the age of 25 (1), excluding a large portion of the population, which skews estimated usage rates. Secondly, only people who have tried to get off heroin multiple times have access (2). So before jumping to any conclusions, lets wait for them to give free heroin to anyone, not just heavy addicts over 25. 2A. Financial burden Pro: This argument would also criminalize sun burn and McDonald's. First, my opponent has not disputed that users do indeed cost a burden to others. Key point, this means she loses access to any arguments related to drug abusers only hurting themselves. We dont criminalize McDonald's because the ER visit rate of drug users is much higher than people going there for eating 200 donuts. I gave specific evidence saying that almost a million people were hospitalized for drug use in 06, I highly doubt that many people were sent for sunburn. 2B. Drug users hurt friends/family She admits its tragic, but contends that this isn't related to criminality. However, it is. With more people using drugs in light of their legalization, you will see more and more families being torn apart. Key point here: She has not denied that drug abusers emotionally hurt friends and family. C. Work Productivity Pro: "Drug users" can refer to prescription drugs The source I gave is VERY specific about saying "illegal drugs". Prescription drugs are never mentioned once, so I dont really get where this is coming from. Pro: Fire employee who abuses drugs Sure, we can fire them, but only AFTER they have caused harm to the company or others around them. So her solution only works after the harm has been done. Pro has never denies that drug users are less productive. D. Harm Pro: We will punish drug users who cause accidents in the workplace Yes, but that will only happen AFTER they cause the accident. Instead, we should use criminal sanctions to prevent some people from taking drugs, and posing this threat in the first place. Onto her case Role of Government Pro: Gov should not be involved in personal relationships I again agree, but drug users raising our hospital and insurance costs isn't a personal relationship, its taxation without representation. Drug users posing inherent risks to others isnt a personal relationship, it is a threat to safety. WoD Impact A. Pro: WOD is just a loose term for all anti-drug efforts With all due respect, no its not. The WoD is about the US actively going out and looking for drug dealers. You can end this WITHOUT LEGALIZING. As I previously stated, there is no War on Murder, but it is still illegal. So while WOD may be a seemingly strong argument for this topic, in reality it does not fulfill the Pro's burden. I cannot stress this enough. Ending the War on Drugs does not equal legalizing. Black Market I wont pretend like I completely understand what pro is trying to say here. It seems like she's implying that the black market is massive and powerful. Of course, I already refuted this by proving that her own system of legalization doesn't solve for this, since the cartels have access to over half of the market even if you affirm. Kids in prison Pro: Drug use doesn't violate rights, Extend my C2, taxation without representation, and risk of accidents which directly violates rights through drug users damaging others emotionally and physically. Pro: People who go to juve are more likely to be adult criminals This is a very strange argument. If a teen is caught stealing electronics, he can go to juvie as well, which according to my opponent, increases his likelihood of being a criminal as an adult. So to prevent this, should we legalize thievery as well? Her argument here is once again not unique to drugs. Racism: Pro: Minorities unfairly targeted, stereotyped, etc I already showed this isn't a reason to legalize by proving that racism happens all over the justice system, not just in drug charges. Pro: My murder evidence is not analagous. Um, this had no warrant whatsoever Medical benefits Pro: Ecstasy cures post-traumatic stress disorder I would arue that this is a short term gain for a long term loss. Ecstasy can surely help people feel good after a tragic event, but because of the drug's destructive properties, they won't be as happy in the future. This is because using ecstasy leads to permanent reduction in seratonin levels (3) after the initial rush. While the person may get over their agony quickly, they will have a hard time doing so in the future due to the long term effects of E. Pro: LSD cures alcaholism Her source cites a person who stopped drinking and smoking, and instead turned to LSD. So it seems like we're just trading one problem for another. This is crucial, since LSD can lead to impaired reasoning and psychosis (4). Pro: Shrooms cure headaches They replace headaches with the high risk of "bad trips" and random hallucinations long after taking the drug (5). Health Risks Pro: Alcahol and tobacco are still more dangerous Her evidence for this (source 15) is rather shoddy. Looking at the chart, I see absolutely nothing that has to do with how dangerous any of these substances are. It simply mentions what constitutes a "lethal dose", which isnt the best way to evaluate the dangers of these substances, since illegal drugs can cause harm without being in a lethal dose. Towards the end of her post, pro makes about 5 additional arguments in one paragraph. Due to character restrains I'll try to respond as briefly as possible. Pro: Gov lied about E putting "holes in brain" So? E has plenty of other negative impacts as I explained before. This proves nothing. Pro: Drug dangers exaggerated Her source leads me to a screen that says "Error 403: access forbidden". Pro: Heroin is not instantly additive The very first line in her source is as follows, "That heroin is addictive is a fact". Her own source contradicts this. Secondly, this doesn't even matter. Even if its not technically addictive, people still use it over and over, so my impacts happen. Pro: Qutting heroin requires a rehab program We can have rehab without legalizing drugs, just as the US does right now. For all of these reasons, I urge a pro vote, thank you.