Consuming mind-altering drugs recreationally should be a crime.

==Addiction== My opponent contends that food and water do not cause people to commit crimes. This is not the case. Man's addiction to food and water can cause him to commit theft and murder. Following my opponent's logic, the solution is to make food and water illegal. Unlike food and water, drugs are not necessary for the individual to survive, and the individual can quit such drugs without dying, so the criminal effect is much less. There are a few important things to note: -Making drugs illegal has not stopped their use. -The effect of making drugs illegal increases crime rate. Making drugs illegal increases the cost of drugs[1], which means that a poor man addicted to coke must pay more for it. The result is an increased desperation, leading to crime. -My opponent's source claiming that drugs make people violent is actually ironic. The violence is due to the Mexican government's crackdown on drugs. So, it is making drugs illegal that causes murder and drug violence, according to my opponent's source[2]. -Making drugs illegal increases the profits for drug dealers[1], encouraging the sale of drugs. ==My Opponent's Crime Proposal== I avoided the drinking and driving argument because there exists a high level of bias towards the issue. If my opponent wants to harp on this issue, then I will point out drunk driving facts. 2007: -503 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes, which was 40 percent of the 1,249 total crash fatalities. [3] -More than 49,600 DUI arrests were recorded by the Secretary of State's office. [3] -Fifty to 75 percent of drunk drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive. [4] -Between 2002 and 1997, the number of drunk driving trips INCREASED[5], in face of laws attempting to decrease them. -A first time drunk driving offender on average has driven drunk 87 times prior to being arrested[6]. From these statistics, we can conlcude two things: -The criminalization of drunk driving has not decreased or discouraged it. -Someone in a drunk driving crash has on average driven drunk 8700 times prior to causing death. And so, drunk driving laws do little to prevent death, contrary to popular belief, while doing much to ruin lives. But that's all besides the point. My opponent is advocating the criminalization of drugs, which I have shown to only make matters worse while punishing innocent civilians. My opponent's crime definition premise is invalid and impractical for the reasons stated last round. ==My Crime Definition Proposal== "Following my opponents flawed logic, murder would be legal. " No, murder would not be legal for the same reason that rape would be illegal: it is coercion. It is a crime because it infringes on another's ability to govern their ability to govern their life and property. By making this illegal, government is protecting the individual's life and liberty. Seeing as that was my opponent's only objection to my proposal, it stands. ==Misc. == My opponent objects to drugs because they cause violence, but as I have shown, making them illegal only increases this violence. My opponent has only warranted his statement that drug use increases crime with a source about how a government drug crackdown killed 33 people, which only further proves my case. ==CONCLUSION== Not only do drug laws do more harm than good, they are an infringement of liberty and the coercive authority of government. Thank you, and vote CON. [1] Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter X [2] . http://www.google.com... [3] . http://www.chicagocaraccidentlawyersblog.com... [4] . http://www.madd.org... [5] . http://www.madd.org... [6] . http://www.madd.org...