Drugs should be legalized in the United States

Thanks, Con. 1. Legalizing Drugs Leads to More Use A. Deterrence A psychological experiment about deterrence and crime conducted in 1978 found that gains were more influential than the probability of capture. In other words, many considered the reward of the crime to be of greater value than the likelihood of their potential punishment. Public opinion surveys also show "Non-users have been much more likely to mention 'not interested' than 'fear of legal reprisals' as the primary reason they did not use marijuana" [18]. Regarding statistics, Con's are conveniently skewed. First, you'll notice that his figures only mention the marijuana user rates of HS seniors. If we expand beyond this demographic, we'll see that 32.6 % of people smoked pot in 1992. Meanwhile, nearly 42 % of people smoked pot in 2010 [19]. User rates are higher today than they were overall in 1992 even after the harsher policies were implemented. Furthermore, "Federal statistics regarding adolescent marijuana use are based upon teenagers' willingness to honestly self-report their use of an illicit substance. Therefore, one must take into account the fact that some teens may choose to either under-report or over-report their cannabis use depending on the social stigma or acceptance attached to marijuana at that time" [20]. In addition, polls that measure an individual's illicit drug consumption have been specifically criticized by the G.A.O. for their "questionable" accuracy. Rep. John Conyers notes after reviewing a 1993 G.A.O. report, "Our national drug strategies are based on unsubstantiated and insufficient information. It is impossible to determine [from these surveys] whether student drug use has been decreasing, increasing, or remaining stable'" [21]. B. Availability The Netherlands decided to give away heroin for free at State sponsored clinics. As a result, heroin became "uncool" and use went down significantly. This led to less disease (sharing needles), less crime, less overdose, etc. [22]. The Swiss soon followed suit, as did the Germans who have seen a 40% decrease in terms of drug-related death [23]. Similar successful policies were enacted in Vancouver. 2. Impacts of Drug Use on Society A. Financial Burden Con contends that it's not fair to increase the cost of health care for everyone because drug users cannot afford their own care. If health care was completely privatized, this would not be an issue at all. Since it's not, we must acknowledge that all ER visits must be accommodated - including those resulting from self-harm. In other words, it's non-sensical to say we won't treat someone because they willingly took drugs, but we will treat someone with diabetes because they willingly ate 200 doughnuts a day. Unless Con is suggesting we criminalize sun burn, McDonalds and other things that can contribute to poor health, this contention is not a strong one. B. Drug Users Cause Their Loved Ones Suffering That's tragic, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the law. My ex's caused me suffering. Jail them? C. Work Productivity Con says 75% of drug users are employed. I fail to see why that's a problem, especially considering how vague this statistic is. Not only does it not specify what "drug users" are using (marijuana is much different from heroin), but some people abuse legal prescription drugs. Further, if one's drug use interferes with their job, their employer can fire them. D. Harm Con mentions drug users pose a risk to injuring others. Of course if one injures another and is found to be under the influence, these offenders will be punished accordingly. However, just as it's irresponsible for the government to restrict citizens from owning guns because accidents might happen, it's equally tyrannical to restrict personal liberties because people might abuse them. 3. The Role of Government Con suggests drug users hurt their loved ones. As I just explained, only if a drug user violates the rights of another does the government have a right to interfere. For example, if a drug user steals from a family member to support their habit, that family member has every right to seek legal compensation. However it's ludicrous to suggest that the government be involved in people's personal relationships. It is not their obligation or right to do so. 4. Impact of the WOD A. The WOD Doesn't Matter Con says "The WOD" is irrelevant. I was using the term loosely to refer to anti-drug efforts, namely the expense of keeping drugs criminalized. B. Black Market Con says that because drugs would only be legal for those over 18, that there would still be a "black market" regarding those who sold to underage kids. The problem is that the black market I described is far more massive, profitable and and powerful than the pathetic Joe Schmo townie who buys cigarettes for underage HS kids at the corner deli. Please extend all of my arguments regarding the mafia, CIA, foreign gangs, etc. My arguments noted that prohibition creates violence by driving the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to killing. "Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically" [24]. C. Drug Rates See: other points on this D. Kids and Prison Con writes, "Teens can get criminal records from thievery, rape, etc as well..." Notice how theft and rape are crimes that specifically violate the rights of others. Drug use does not. Moreover my point was that those who end up in the juvenile criminal system are more likely to end up in the adult criminal system, so it makes no sense to encourage this negative and expensive cycle. The same principle applies to adults in jail for drug charges. E. Racism The point is that because minorities are unfairly targeted, it creates the "permanent underclass of people" I mentioned in the last round, perpetuates negative stereotypes, and enacts policies that specifically disenfranchise a particular race. The murder example is not analogous. F. Medical Benefits Are Ignored There are innumerable medical benefits to illegal drugs! To keep it short, MDMA can cure PTSD up to 80 percent of the time [25]; mushrooms can cure cluster headaches [26]; LSD can cure alcoholism [27]; etc. G. Health Risks Con says alcohol and tobacco kill more people than illegal drugs, thus this being an argument in his favor. However, I provided evidence indicating that tobacco and alcohol were MORE dangerous than many illegal drugs, so this is actually non-sensical. Con must justify keeping more harmful drugs legal than less harmful ones, or advocate complete prohibition. Further, I've contended that prohibition encourages misinformation about many drugs. For instance, the government lied about ecstasy "putting holes in your brain" [28]. The same source and others talks about how the dangers for this and other drugs are greatly exaggerated [29]. Another myth is that heroin is instantaneously addictive. Meanwhile, it generally takes months or longer to become habitually addicted [30]. Moreover, to quit heroin use a qualified drug rehab program is essential [31]. By keeping drugs criminalized, you're encouraging people to commit other crimes to perpetuate a habit. Decriminalizing drugs and focusing on treatment would be far more healthy for the user and society as a whole. Extend any and all dropped arguments. Sources: http://www.debate.org...