Opium Should be Legalized

Thank you CloudApex, Economically Harmful 1. "Opium was in fact used for its medicinal properties in the early 19th century as an analgesic until it was overridden by morphine, a more potent and less addictive cousin." Unfortunately, my opponent does not seem completely familiar with the facts. I"m not sure how this was a problem since I specifically mentioned morphine and heroin in my opening statement, but, to be clear: Morphine is not a cousin of opium, it is opium. Morphine is made by refining the extract of the opium poppy. Heroin is further refined from morphine. (This is a slight oversimplification of the process used to make heroin, but that is not relevant to this debate) Laudanum is a mixture of opium and alcohol. To be clear, MORPHINE IS ILLEGAL. This of course makes morphine more expensive than it would be, and more importantly means that medical use of morphine is surrounded by mountains of paperwork, meaning that morphine is not used medicinally as much as it could be. 2. "In addition, when Morphine was initially legalized in the United States of America and Europe in the 19th century, people were binging on it and became instantly hooked by its high addictiveness, leading to a surge of Opium-dependent bourgeoisie." Opium was not legalized in the 19th century. It was completely legal (in the United States and Europe) for all of human history up until the late nineteenth century when the first steps were taken to regulate it. In the early twentieth century, it was made illegal. The "Opium-dependent bourgeoisie" my opponent refers to were often creative and productive citizens. The author Wilkie Collins was an opium (laudanum) user and later an addict. This did not prevent him from inventing the detective genre, in fact, he wrote much of his famous novel The Moonstone while under the influence of opium. [1] The nineteenth century was a period of colossal artistic and political achievement, technological development, and economic growth. We should be very suspicious of claims that drug legalization will lead to rampant laziness and dependency. Western civilization survived for centuries with no drug laws at all. 3. "Since Opium is no longer a drug of such high popularity (not a party drug), it's trafficking 'worth' is scant in comparison to Marijuana and Heroine." HEROIN IS OPIUM. 4. "There exists an entire field of drug trade that exists behind the federal agency's back but removing one drug (a particularly low-profile drug) from the drug trafficking trade will yield nearly nil change in its booming economy" [the] more widespread party drugs should be the target of undermining the illicit drug trafficking business as opposed to the low-tune drugs" Obviously heroin and morphine are not "low-profile" drugs and make up a very large part of the illegal drug market. Regardless though, it makes no sense to say that we should not obtain a benefit that we can obtain for free just because it is a small benefit. Morally Wrong My opponent explains that harsh penalties for opium users are necessary to catch opium dealers and prevent opium use. He has not explained how the government is morally justified in pursuing either of those goals. It is generally accepted that a mugger is not morally justified in mugging a person because that person enjoys poetry, or music, or even alcohol. Similarly, we cannot morally mug someone just because that person endangers themselves by playing football. Why do we allow people to kidnap and imprison people who peacefully consume opium in their own homes? Threat to National Security 1. "As you may know, the Taliban enforced a ban that disallowed all local farmers to farm Opium, so that the Taliban would have full harvesting capability. They cultivated the plants successfully and distributed them at a high price point, but they've done this to such a large extent that they've neglected to plant new seeds, as Opium is not a perennial plant like tulips are in their respect. The supply of poppy has been nearly exhausted and the inclement weather does not suggest that the Taliban will be replenishing their supply" This is interesting, but I don"t think it"s true. My opponent may be thinking of the short lived ban on opium implemented by the Taliban when they decided it was contrary to the laws of Islam. The Taliban reversed this ban very shortly afterward, when they realized that they had lost an incredibly important source of revenue. The Taliban is now thoroughly back in the opium business and cultivation is increasing. [2] 2. U.S. police working to destroy opium cultivation (often by violently destroying opium fields and leaving the farmers destitute) do not want to be killed by the Taliban so they operate in areas that are friendly to the U.S. This impoverishes areas friendly to the U.S., but far worse, it reduces the supply of opium which drives up the price, which enriches the Taliban friendly areas on which U.S. police do not patrol. U.S. military actions work to enrich the Taliban. My opponent could argue that drug police should venture into Taliban friendly areas, but why does it make sense to have U.S. personnel risk their lives to protect a policy that harms the economy and crushes individual freedom? [3] Statistics 1. "Opiate use and addiction is linked to at least 50 percent of the major crimes in the United States; at least half of all suspects arrested for violent crimes (homicide, assault, etc.) were under the influence of opiates when arrested." I think Harvard economist Thomas Sowell addresses this better than I could. "Drugs are inherently a problem for the individual who takes them, but they are a much bigger problem for society precisely because they are illegal. It is their illegality that makes them costly and drives people to desperation to get the money by any means at anybody else"s expense. The mere cost of production of drugs can be very inexpensive. If an addict could support his addiction for a few dollars a week, he would still be an addict, but he would not have to steal mug or kill other people to support his habit" -Thomas Sowell 1987 5. "Statistics show that Opiate abuse and Opiate addiction cost Americans over $484 billion annually. This amount includes healthcare costs and abuses of the healthcare system, lost wages, car accidents, crime, and criminal justice system costs." I researched this figure and found that numerous websites contain this statement, all in identical wording, but I could not find the actual study the figure comes from. However, let"s assume that it"s true. The cost of opiates could be reduced dramatically if we stopped wasting police and justice system resources trying to fight them. But even if opiates still resulted in an enormous cost society, does this mean they should be illegal? If music did not exist, I would probably spend more time working, and I would certainly spend less time playing music. I would spend less of my income on music and more on other things. Many intelligent people who major in music would focus on jobs that have a more productive material benefit to society. Certainly, music distracts people while they are driving. The cost of music in terms of lost wages, car accidents, and lost productivity is surely enormous. Does this mean that music is wrong? Should it be banned?