The United States should legalize all drugs

Sorry for not posting my rebuttals. I will post them now.FrameworkOkay, I will agree to Pro that we should not put new arguments in the last round. If anyone posts new arguments in the last round, the other opponent gets the forfeited points automatically, even though they have weaker arguments. Next of all, Pro says I concede on many of his arguments. However, it is just that I did not any space to rebut Pro's arguments, so I will do that. Many of Pro's arguments fall for few reasons, and I will conclude that in the end of my rebuttals, and then start my defense. As I just made arguments about not legalizing smoking, this round I may (If I have characters) argue that drugs should not be legalized because of recreational use. If I see one drug needs to be banned, I win, because the resolution says that all drugs should be legalized.Rebuttals1. Harm PrincipleI just knew that Pro had this argument, so I will rebut his argument now.This argument is also kinda rebutted in Liberty, but Pro states that the harm principle is that you have the right to have choice unless it does not hurt anyone. However, this is false. Drugs do harm other people by secondhand impact. This means that there is no reason to have the liberty of our choices for drugs, because of secondhand impact from others who do not smoke.Pro does this by two reasons which are that the government needs to citizens happy, however this does not be accurate. Only some people be happy by drugs, when some don't and get secondhand impact. Therefore we should have liberty for the people who do not use drugs also, not only the people who use drugs. The government's job is to make the citizens happy, but because of drug legalization, people are not happy, and the government is failing their job.2. Criminal NetworksThere is no true harm for criminal networks, it is just that the Taliban will be bound to buy legal business. This completely does not harm to the US, that Taliban people buy legal businesses. Why can't they buy illegal ones just that drugs are illegal? There is smoking also. My point is that we can legalize few drugs, like things that won't harm the criminal networks, just that we won't illegalize all. Thus, this argument is useless if few drugs are legalized, but all are not.3. Little increase of drug usePro says that drugs will that there will be an little of an increase of people who use drugs. However this is false very reasonably. First of all, we are legalising drugs, meaning that there is no bad thing if we buy drugs, because there is no bad harm like having a penalty. There will become a huge use of drugs, because it is legalised.4. Saves innocent livesPro states that legalizing drugs will save lives because of the Mexican Drug War. However, this argument does not do about we need to legalize all drugs. Not all drugs will end the Mexican Drug War, and a lot of drugs are useless. There are a lot of different kinds of drugs, and one can stand out.There is also another bad thing for Pro that finishes this argument. It is that drugs do not save people's lives. According to my secondhand impact argument, it states that people die because of the environment drugs make around us. This kills the population of people who are innocent. Thus, drugs do not save innocent lives, they destroy them.5. Economic BenefitsThis is the total opposite of my second argument in round 2. My argument clearly states that the economy fails if we have drugs because there will be less people from more dead, and less people will be there, which means that there will be a worse of an economy.6. CrimeBecause the 3rd one that Pro states is so short, and not an argument, I won't rebut it. It is just about prison costs will go down. There is no bad thing for this that will be made to legalize all drugs. This is not really a bad thing. Next is Crime. Pro says that legalizing drugs will reduce crime.What is crime?Crime: An action that is evil or wrong.Okay, because of the cartels and the black market, that doesn't mean it reduces actions that are wrong.7. Use drugs less if legalizedOkay, this argument has to be wrong. As what it said in my 3rd rebuttal, Pro states that there will be a little increase of drug use. However, this argument says that they will use drugs less if legalized, making one of these arguments wrong. This is the end of my rebuttals. I will go on my defense, arguments, and end the round.Defense1. Secondhand impactOkay, this is my first argument. Pro said that he has a "solution" and a counterplan to rebut this, and the plan was that we should make drug zones. There is a easy way to rebut this. It is that some drugs like niciotine can move around. They go into different apartments, and also, do you expect that these drugs will stay in one place? If there are zones which Pro states, if someone goes out, the air goes out. Secondhand smoke can travel. This means that Pro's plan is flawed, and not effective in any sort of way.2. EconomyOkay, Drugs cost 180$ a year because of death. Even though drug ban will give more money to the economy, there will be more deaths because of the drugs that are not beneficial to your health will kill people. This has a stronger impact and more of a economy failure if we have drugs then not having drugs.3. HealthOkay, Pro says that he had rebutted this by the harm principle, but he clearly failed to rebut this argument properly. I rebutted the Harm Principle saying that the people get harmed by secondhand impact. His argument gets clearly addressed in my argument. Pro says they are irrelevant. How are they irrelevant? I clearly stated all the bad things and the effects from drugs, and said that is turned and rebuts or makes my side bad. The rebuttal is completely wrong. I am stating that if we legalize drugs, people's health will be bad.Pro failed to successfully rebut my argument about secondhand impact and also the health argument. Arguments1. There is medical use for drugsThere is a shocking news. The news is that drugs can be used for medical use. That means that drugs can be legalized, but for medical use. That is the only option that drugs should be legalized. Pro will say that I said we should legalize drugs, and I conceded the debate, however I didn't. The resolution is about legalizing drugs for non-medical use, however the only good thing about drugs is their medical use, but still, it does not advantage for Pro. ConclusionOkay, here comes to my conclusion. I believe that drugs should not be legalized or legalized for medical use because of 4 reasons, 3 are in round 2, one in this round. Pro failed to rebut two of my arguments properly, when I rebutted all of Pro's arguments. Vote Con on secondhand impact.Thank you. Vote for Con.Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...