In addition to our second argument: The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest

There were some technical problems with entering text as a response to their previous argument, so this section will include rebuttal both to their previous argument and this argument. To the previous argument: (1) We absolutely reject the idea that alcohol and cigarettes are as harmful or [as the government seems to believe] more harmful than hard drugs. There is simply is no way these can be compared. We have previously demonstrated the huge harm associated with using hard drugs. These harms far outweigh the risks associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco. It was hard not to notice the inappropriate use of statistics by the proposition. Yes, obviously the ABSOLUTE number of people dying from alcohol and cigarettes is bigger. But that's just because drugs are currently illegal! The real proxy variable that we should be looking at is the RELATIVE harm for one individual who is using a particular substance. It is not that hard to understand that, in this sense, cocaine is far more harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. We also fundamentally reject the idea that drugs, contrary to alcohol, does not harm the 3rd party. The examples given by the proposition were unconvincing. People can also drive under the influence of drugs and be dangerous. Just because currently there are less people who are doing so (remember, this is not about the absolute number) does not mean that this amount of people would not increase after the ban is removed. (2) We have never argued that alcohol and cigarettes are not harmful. This debate is not about that. If they are so harmful as the proposition believes they are, they should also be banned - we would not have problem with that (by the way, we previously have shown historical reasons why they are not banned under the status quo). If they are not that harmful, they should stay legal. Either way, we have demonstrated the gigantic harms associated with the drug use. Regardless of what you think about cigarettes and alcohol, there is no place for drugs in our society. To this argument: (1) We find using one historical text as a basis for generalising about human behaviour unacceptable. We do not believe that a parable from the Bible can in any way compete with scientific psychological research about what motivates human beings. Our point was simply that is not clear whether the effect of the forbidden fruit has so much impact on human behaviour. Every social psychology textbook can reaffirm this. (2) We would like to point out that the proposition chose not to respond to the central point of what we were saying. We did not say that the forbidden fruit effect does not work. We said that this effect is likely to be weaker than the real, objective, contraints put on people when buying drugs. We believe that a ban results in a lower total consumption of drugs. (3) Finally, we would like to point out a fundamental inconsistency in what the proposition team is saying. On one hand, they are saying that drugs are something that individuals should be allowed to consume. They think that the harm they produce is less important than the individual ability to choose. Thus they concede that is acceptable that people consume drugs. On the other hand, they have created this argument about the forbidden fruit. They say that banning drugs increases interest in drugs, which is bad. So which one is it? Is consuming drugs a good thing or a bad thing? We think that this argument fundamentally contradicts the rest of their case.