Decriminalization of All Drug Usage

Introduction:I will begin by rebutting Pro's argument, specifically dedicating a paragraph to each point that he made. I will then argue my side of the story.Rebuttals:Point 1:Pro makes clear that the origins of the War on Drugs had a discriminatory history. I will in no way attempt to deny this. I will, however, point out that a massive amount of landmark government programs have been discriminatory in nature. I will specifically elaborate on the electoral college, our country's method of electing the head of the executive branch. The founding fathers created a so-called democracy in which only 6% of its citizens could vote. Those citizens were white, land-owning men ("Expansion of Rights"). Many argue that people are still being denied the right to vote today. The electoral college is not the focal point of this debate, but my point in sharing it as an exampe was to demonstrate that much of America was based upon discriminatory policies. Such policies are viewed with merit though, and it is unfair to judge a law by its history.Point 2:In his second point, Pro made a very biased argument. The debate is discussing the War on Drugs which includes drugs besides marijuana. While marijuana likely should be legalized due to its low danger levels in comparison to alcohol and cigarettes, there are other drugs that remain very dangerous. Such drugs include the likes of heroin and cocaine, both of which are comparable to alcohol and nicotine ("Addictive Properties"). Pro seems to not understand the very real dangers of otherwise limited drugs being unleashed to a very wide audience.Point 3:Pro seems to have forgotten what the debate was about. The debate is entitled Decriminalization of All Drug Usage and yet Pro entitles his third point, "Case for Legalizing All Drugs". The difference is that decriminalization of drug usage would mean that criminal charges would not be pressed against users of drugs, whereas legalization of drugs would mean that the production, distribution, and usage of drugs would be acceptable before a court of law. I will allow Pro the next round to better define his argument and I will refrain from rebutting the other evidence until then.My Argument:My argument is that the War on Drugs needs to step back, regroup, and refocus. The American government is totally capable of winning the War on Drugs. The United States were able to stem cigarette use significantly through political strategy. See this: http://www.cdc.gov... a brief overview. A war has never been won by giving up and trying to reverse the ideals the war was started on. That is my argument. I hope it proves to be crystal clear. Works Cited: "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Tobacco Use -- United States, 1900-1999." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.cdc.gov...; "Addictive Properties of Popular Drugs." Welcome to Drug War Facts. Common Sense for Drug Policy, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <http://www.drugwarfacts.org...; "Expansion of Rights and Liberties ~ The Right of Suffrage." The Charters of Freedom: "A New World Is at Hand" The National Archives, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016. <https://www.archives.gov...;