End Prohibition, Drugs Become Public Health Issue

Thank you for the good reply. If you do not mind, because it is so large I will simply debate point by point. ====== My opponent used this link to in order to reference his source: http://news.bbc.co.uk... This is not a scientific article, or an article even referenced itself. It is titled "Drug 'doubles mental health risk'" which implies a previous risk already existed not having to do with drugs. It also uses words such as "probably" and refers to smoking a "drug" which is vague. The article is not a valid reference in order to back up my opponents claim for it does not even specific the study using legal or illegal drugs to do it's study. Next, my opponent argues that drugs do not just affect the user, but the liberties and quality of life of others, and therefore should remain a criminal issue. This claim is baseless on the terms of their already being legal drugs which are exponentially more detrimental to the users health, and society. For example, tobacco is legal and kills more people each year than each scheduled drug combined. Also, the effects of smoking harms surrounding people, and can kill them. To further my point, this effects the quality of life of people nowhere near smoke in their lives, for they have to deal with a suffering health system due to the overabundance of avoidable death; tobacco smoking. Next my opponent addressed the correlation of drug abuse and crime. He is very correct, there is a correlation. However correlation does not prove causation, and his argument actually falls onto my side. If drug addicts commit crimes because they're trying to fund their habits, the obvious solution at the very least would be not to continue using a failed system of prohibition. Addicts will forever be addicts, and have always found a way to get what they desire, even in prison. The solution is not prohibition, because it creates violence on a much larger scale as profitability becomes reality for illegal drugs. I will not provide a link, but a reminder of the before and after effects of the prohibition on alcohol. After prohibition, the violence was lessened tremendously. Next, my opponent argues legalization of current illegal drugs would increase illegal drug users. This does not make sense, for it would no longer be a criminal act. Next my opponent argues police forces fighting against the catalyst of drug abuse will be better to deal with the overall rate of crime. My opponent again is absolutely correct, however I would like to add perspective. The reason police would have more resources to deal with drug abuse because of drugs being illegal, is because the United States alone pays over 40 billion dollars a year to maintain it's prohibition of illegal drugs. In fact, that's 40 billion dollars to only maintain the prohibition of one drug; that is cannabis. Maintaining prohibition of all drugs is costly on every level of government as more resources go into combating something that cannot be defeated. Furthermore, this is not even including the amount of money that could be made from tax revenue in a legal and controlled market. Prohibition is a crushing cost to maintain, and only further adds to the debt of the United States and Canada, which ironically harms the liberties of all citizens. Next my opponent speaks about the need for government mandated coercion in order to not only require abusers to attend treatment, but to keep them there for they are a harm to society, along with themselves. Because you did not define what an abuser is, it is implied all users of illegal drugs are abusers, and therefor should be required to receive treatment, and stay in it. This would mean nearly half the population of the United States should be in treatment, for many polls indicate the usage rate of widely used illegal drugs such as cannabis are nearing 50%. I further argue coercion is subjective, and mandatory anything does not encourage participation and is a poor form of coercion. The current recidivism rates for prisons and treatment centers reflects this. Next, "The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated." They are not removed for society, for society is the one paying for them to be there. Also, drugs can't even be kept out of prisons. Furthermore, you insinuate receiving treatment is punishment, which if true would be counter-productive for the goal would be for the 'victim' to succeed. Next, "It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment. This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves?" Please clarify your argument here. Citizens currently pay tax dollars which go towards treatment centers. You argued drug abusers are a threat to society. Now, whether or not drugs are legal does not change this for addicts are addicts, which is why your point needs to be clarified for me. Next, "I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures." I offer the exert "The U.S. "war on drugs" disproportionately targets urban minority neighborhoods. Two national reports released in early 2008 found that although whites commit more drug offenses, African Americans are arrested and imprisoned on drug charges at much higher rates. " http://www.prohibitioncosts.org... ===== Unfortunately, I will not continue to argue the rest of your points. If there is one other in particular you wish for me to address, do ask. Thank you for your time, looking forward to your reply.