The USFG should legalize all drugs

Pro says “Con drops my entire case. Extend my argument that drugs are awesome, the harm principle, and my cost/benefit analysis of legalization vs prohibition.” To be clear, I did not drop these arguments, I just followed a typical debate structure only presenting my case in round two. I will now address pro’s case. “Drugs are awesome” Pro presents an appeal to his personal experience with drugs. he also argues that “unless you've done lots of drugs, you probably don't know how educational and life-changing they are.” I am not sure how serious I can take that kind of statement. Is something being “awesome” some kind of justification for legality? What if a pedophile said “sex with minors is awesome and unless you’ve had sex with a minor you don’t know how awesome it is.” Or a cutter saying “cutting yourself is awesome and if you have never tried it, you simply don’t know how awesome and therapeutic it is. Since personal experience seems to be important to pro I will draw from my own experience. As an adolescent I had friends tell me that they were experimenting with drugs in hopes of inducing a type of religious experience. I thought I would try it… I found my experience to be artificial, superficial and in no way beneficial. The cause of deadening of your senses, or an over sensitivity is interesting, perhaps fascinating but overall dangerous and unpredictable. “The Harm Principle” Pro quotes Mill “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” And yet dismisses my argument stating “the issue in this debate isn't whether drug use is harmful or even net harmful.” Surely if the harm principle is to be applied, and drugs cause harm, then it is reasonable under the harm principle to make them illegal. I refer you to Premise 2 of the first part of my argument. Drugs are harmful. Pro says “drugs aren't inherently harmful. The harms are caused by the circumstances in which someone consumes drugs.” this is silly, could I not say the same about his “drugs are awesome” argument. Pro is not arguing that drugs are awesome, rather the benefits of consuming drugs are awesome. I showed that effects inherent to drugs are harmful including things like "clouded thinking," "death," "paranoia," and so on. To this pro says “these aren't inherently bad things. And doing heroin or cocaine don't guarantee you'll experience these things. These are potential risks.” Pro, If death is not an inherently bad thing… what is? Pro is correct to say there is no guarantee that these negative effects will be the result. However, they are the side “effect” of taking those drugs. In other words, the impact of taking some drugs like heroin is negative. It is far more likely that you will have these negatives if you take the drugs than if you did not. Remember, the resolution is to legalize “all” drugs. Not just some. It is evident that some drugs are inherently harmful. It is not a stretch to assume that someone who’s mood is altered, having hallucinations, is paranoid, prone to erratic and violent behavior, and/or having suicidal thoughts poses a threat to themselves and others. Thus applying the harm principle to this debate supports the illegality of some drugs. Legalizing drugs obviously would increase the consumption of such drugs. The impact being harmful. “Cost/benefit analysis of legalization vs. prohibition.” Pro claims that “They're (those who do drugs) weighing the potential harms against the potential benefits. And if they keep doing drugs, they're deciding that the benefits outweigh. The idea that drugs are inherently harmful is therefore false.” This is a specious argument. An addict of drugs does not weigh benefit and harm rationally. Neither does the average drug user. Neither does the fast food junkie. To argue that people make rational cost/benefit analysis of their drug use is naive at best. Consider, The result of legal tobacco: The sad truth is having a legalized drug that causes harm, like tobacco, is it leads to a large industry that profits off people addicted and suffering from their product. Where jobs created… yes, what is the cost!? “Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including an estimated 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. This is about one in five deaths annually, or 1,300 deaths every day.” (1) “If smoking continues at the current rate among U.S. youth, 5.6 million of today’s Americans younger than 18 years of age are expected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. This represents about one in every 13 Americans aged 17 years or younger who are alive today.” (1) The result of legal alcohol: “excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006 were estimated at $223.5 billion, or $1.90 a drink.” (2) By allowing harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco to be legal, our society has monetized a human life. Profits are made and jobs created but society pays the ultimate price in life’s lost. The same would be true if we legalized all drugs. The harms of legalizing a harmful substance far out-weigh the benefits of legalization. This is clear as legalization leads to larger consumption of harmful drugs. A small note: Pro address decriminalization and misunderstands why that is more feasible than legalization. When people speed they get a ticket. Driving 85 mph in a 25 mph zone is illegal. People who get speeding tickets are not criminals but are in violation of the law. To decriminalize drug use is the same concept. Society through law says x is not ok, but just because you do x does not mean you are a hardened criminal. Thus Drug use would be a violation of law, but not a crime. Burdens: Pro asks for specifics to what I am proposing. I don’t have any. The topic of this debate is legality. Only after deciding the question we here are debating could we feasible discuss specifics. I am under no burden to show specifics, nor do I have to defend the status quo. Pro has the burden to show that all drugs should be legalized. My burden is simply to keep him from meeting his. Thus far in this debate it is clear. P1: The U.S. government ought to protect citizens from harm. P2: Citizens can be and are harmed by Drugs C: The U.S. Government ought to protect citizens from Drugs. How is that done? The Government protects citizens through the rule of law. We can therefore conclude that “The Government through the rule of Law should protect Citizens from drugs.” The resolution is soundly negated. Sources: (1) http://www.cdc.gov... (2) http://www.cdc.gov...