Drug Decriminalization

Sorry for missing the last round. THE ECONOMY & DRUG VIOLENCE Con says "Legalization...the demand will go up while the Cartels will use violence to keep the supply down." Cartels cannot limit a legal supply through violence, the supply would be too high. With pot legal, anyone could grow it if not outdoors than indoors on their own property, or buy it from a local grower. Cartels would not go around killing everyone to stop the growth, the same way they didn't go around shooting public and private breweries when alcohol became legal. Con is using an appeal to fear, and ignoring that gangs and cartels control the drug trade specifically because it is illegal, the way the mafia controlled the alcohol trade through violence during Prohibition. Criminalization encourages the illegal drug trade and fuels cartel violence, which I explained in the last round and sourced evidence to prove it. Con never disproved it. Con says terrorist activities happen involving the illegal drug trade. This already happens even when drugs are criminalized. If the drug trade were legal, terrorists would have to get into a different trade. Drugs would no longer be on the black market but on the regulated market, which eliminates their ability to control the supply. Therefore we can say criminalization encourages terrorist drug enterprises. I have given citations and sources telling why legalizing drugs would likely decrease violence, because data shows that drug violence is mostly related to criminalization (fighting over the drug trade) which I sourced in the last round with evidence, and Con didn't reply. Con did not give us Marshall's explanation for me to refute, and he has not disputed my points or citations. Again criminalization fuels violence, not the other way around [A]. Con says marijuana is addictive, but 91% of people who smoke it do not get hooked [B]. He also says that pot can cause depression, but studies show that people who already have depression might be more likely to smoke pot as a way to cope [C], so it's not necessarily the pot that causes depression itself. What Con didn't mention is that pot is also known to have a ton of health benefits and medicinal uses, including reversing the damaging effects Con noted. He brings up pot as being "5x worse" than cigarette smoke, whereas pot has been known to reduce carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health [D]. Also it not only works to cure pain, but depression and anxiety as well [E]. It has different effects for all, but scientists are in overwhelming agreement about the many medicinal uses pot can have. Economists agree pot legalization would do wonders for the economy. There are at least 14 ways it can boost the economy [F], including a surge in tax revenue to put toward schools, research and other helpful programs. Colorado, Seattle and other places have seen huge economic gains since legalization [G] along with LESS crime [H]. All violent crime went down in CO along with auto fatalities, though the link between the two is probably weak and will fluctuate. While the info is tricky and the economic benefits of legalization can surely be exaggerated, there is no doubt pot legalization has by far been overall good for the economy according to ALL credible sources on the matter, and here are 4 of them [I] [J] [K] [L]. Economic concerns are just one reason former world leaders have called upon the world to decriminalize drugs [M], because indeed there is a huge economic case for legalization in addition to moral and practical [N]. Stanford Law studies and Yale University analysis confirms criminalization costs far more than it's worth [O]. Plus according to the World Bank, at least three-fourths of expenditures on drugs in the US goes toward punishing dealers and users instead of treating them [P]. This encourages more drug abuse and the cycle of crime I mentioned in the last round. HUMAN FREEDOM On human freedom, Con mentions a supreme court case and Thomas Hobbe's philosophy. He suggests that humans shouldn't be free to do anything they want, and I agree. However people should be able to do things that do not directly and definitively cause other people harm. For example, laws prohibit us from being aggressive or driving while drunk, but if you want to drink and you take measures to avoid hurting other people, then you are allowed to do so. The same logic should extend to taking drugs. If you hurt someone while under the influence, you should be punished, but otherwise you should be free to do what you please. Alcohol has worse, more dangerous effects than legal drugs, so it makes no sense to say you can drink alcohol if you are careful, but not take drugs if you are careful. Alcohol is more dangerous than crack, cocaine and heroin [Q]. But alcohol is not the only analogy or point here, even though it proves we legalize things based on our desire and not what is the safest course of action. The supreme court and Hobbe's philosophy still value freedom and liberty for the individual, even if they consider the safety of others. Our laws should account for other people's safety in addition to our personal freedom. ADDICTION For addiction, Con expects us to care about the alleged 3 deaths caused by marijuana, out of the millions and millions of people who have used it which is ridiculous. More importantly Con never sourced these 3 alleged deaths, because common knowledge is that ZERO people have ever overdosed on marijuana, so it's probably a weak link. Far more dangerous activities and substances are legal and regulated, especially pharmaceuticals which cause many more deaths and have far more damaging effects. But even sugar, caffeine and other things like gambling are legal despite being addictive and potentially harmful. Studies show that countries that decriminalize drugs have a much better method of dealing with addiction and preventing it. In the last round I pointed out that Portugal's decriminalization strategies have reduced drug consumption, dependance, infection and promoted safety--but Con dropped this argument and these examples of course. Those places treat addiction as a medical issue and not a criminal issue, which has had positive effects and again turns Con's own argument against him. He must address how decriminalization has been successful elsewhere. Countries all across Latin America are starting to decriminalize to follow in the footsteps of a better model [R]. Con focuses on drug violence in Mexico, but Mexico is decriminalizing drugs specifically to eliminate the violence! Mexico is begging other countries to follow suit and legalize to eliminate violence there [S] and studies show legalization here has already helped reduce violence there [T] so Con's graphics are useless. CRAZY DRUGS Con's final argument is that "crazy" drugs will be decriminalized. Just because something is legal does not mean everyone will suddenly want to do it, especially if it is very dangerous and harmful to the user. Also, even if someone wants to do something dangerous, they should be able to (but penalized for hurting others). This argument is similar to the arguments against criminalizing guns. Yes, some people MIGHT hurt others with their gun, but most gun owners are responsible and not evil, and take measures to avoid hurting others. We cannot use the possibility of a crazy or evil user to take away the rights of other more responsible users. CONCLUSION I have refuted every single one of Con's arguments. He dropped ALL of mine--Drug criminalization encourages gang activity and violent crime, contributes to the prison industrial complex, costs tax payers a ton of money, does little for deterrence, and ruins the lives of people who get caught with drugs. Of course Con also dropped my points about decriminalization working elsewhere in the world, and the potential for harm not trumping other people's individual rights (like with guns). Thanks for the debate! [A] http://www.cnn.com...= [B] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [C] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [D] http://www.businessinsider.com... [E] http://www.disabled-world.com... [F] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [G] http://www.collective-evolution.com... [H] http://www.forbes.com... [I] http://money.cnn.com... [J] http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com... [K] https://theweek.com... [L] http://www.businessinsider.com... [M] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [N] http://qz.com... [O] http://www.ycsg.yale.edu... [P] http://qz.com... [Q] http://www.webmd.com... [R] http://www.americasquarterly.org... [S] http://www.reuters.com... [T] http://townhall.com...