The U.S. should legalize all drugs

I thank Con for giving me a fun first debate on the site. I understand time constraints, we all have lives after all, and this round was posted with 15 minutes left!Rebuttal:Overdose1. Con questions whether people will read the dosage amounts on legal drugs to prevent an overdose. Well its unlikely that they'll just take a random amount when the correct number if right there in front of them. I ask the judges to remember a time when they had to take some kind of medicine or pill, and remember if they just took a random amount or found out how much they should take by looking at the bottle or asking someone. In fact just seeing the words "take 2" or "take no more than 5 grams" would be enough to prevent overdose, which is nonexistent under the status quo of criminalization. I also ask the judges to go back to my sources 3 and 4 form my second round, and decide which substance they'd rather exist. 2. If my opponent wants to legalize cocaine, thats fine. Even if judges think thats acceptable, I'd still be gaining advantage on heroin overdose because thats also a major cause. Legalizing cocaine and nothing else (the con stance) might solve 43% of overdoses, but legalizing BOTH (the pro stance) would solve 86%.3. In reference to the media's stance on drugs, Con cays its a red herring. Lol, well he's the one who brought this argument up! So I guess he's just defeated it for me.4. Con says legalizing drugs may not lessen the taboo on them because they're still harmful. But remember, the only reason drugs are deadly is because they're illegal, which causes rampant overdoses and adulteration. 5. Extend - Purity overdoses will not exist under legalization. Wasn't addressed in my opponent's last round.AdulterantsDrug dealers add substances to their drugs to dilute it, making it look like there's 10 grams of crack when there's really just 5, which makes them a bigger profit. However, they don't necessarily realize that them "cutting" the drugs in this way can harms their buyers . If a buyer gets sick, they can just dismiss it off as damage from just taking the drug, when in reality it was due to the adulteration. This would simply be solved by voting Pro, where legal regulations on drugs would prevent this type of damage.Research to reduce the harms of drugs is being done now, but criminalization limits it strongly. Only government sponsored scientists are allowed to research on them currently. Private companies and researchers are barred from it due to drugs being illegal. Legalization would open the door to the private sector, letting more research on drugs to be done, speeding up the process of making them less dangerous.Aids/Needle Exchange Con drops my hypothetical, where I point out that its nonsensical to legalize only needle exchange centers, where drug users can hang out and use drugs as they please, but not legalize drugs in general. This is a huge concession, because it means the AIDS advantage is unique to the Pro position, which saves tens of thousands of lives. Cartels1. Con now says that drug dealers deserve to die because its Utilitarian. Um, what? They sell powders and plants to people. Most of them aren't mass murderers. So I don't see how its "for the greater good" to kill an average dealer for his actions.2. I argued that drug use will decreases under legalization. Con drops ALL my warrants here. Extend 1. Netherlands sell marijuana legally yet have lower usage rates. 2. Criminalization doesn't prevent drug use, proven by teens being able to get weed easier than alcohol, which is legal. 3. Teens will use drugs less because they would become "uncool" if legalized. This is an independent reason to vote Pro. Con only has one offensive argument, and its that drugs cause crime. But if less people will use drugs under legalization (conceded), then there will be less drug-related crime, which turns the advantage.Con does offer the Heritage Foundation card, which arbitrarily says that legalization would "increase the prevalence of cocaine use". I use the word Arbitrarily because it gives no reason as to why this would happen. It literally just says "this will happen" with no warrant explaining why thats the case. Even if its from a credible corporation, they still have to explain their reasoning if we're going to count this in the debate round. 3. Extend the Bureau of Justice evidence, which indicates that 17% of thefts are committed to get drug money. Con agrees that the price of drugs will decrease if we legalize, so we'll eliminate the need for that type of crime to occur.4. I agree that drugs can make people have irrational decisions, but the whole argument is that we can't prove that these irrational decisions turn into criminal decisions. He never refutes my argument that social status is just as likely a cause of crime as drugs, which would mean he's not meeting his burden to prove that drugs are uniquely responsible for criminal tendencies. But remember, even if he won this argument, I would be the one gaining advantage because he conceded my warrants for legalization decreasing drug use.5. Con thinks drug cartels will just become human trafficking cartels if we legalized drugs. However, the argument I made in the last 2 rounds isn't that they'll just disappear, rather, that they will flee the country to deal drugs somewhere else. This will eliminate cartels in the US without them making it up in other areas.He never responded to my rebuttal of the McDonough card.ConclusionMy opponent makes arguments saying that drugs cause crime and that they're dangerous, but never explains how keeping drugs illegal actually remedies the problem. At the point where its established that legalization would prevent 86% of drug-related deaths, and that criminal sanctions don't deter usage, and that it would drive out the Mexican drug cartels which house in over 200 US cities, it should be clear that there are benefits to voting Pro. Judges should consider whether my opponent has provided similar argument. Has he proven that good things happen if we keep drugs illegal? I'm not sure. In fact, he's tried to use a few of my arguments for himself, such as legalizing cocaine and needle exchange centers, which sounds pretty close to a Pro ballot anyway. But I think the biggest points I win on are that legalization reduces drug use, and that the legal sale of drugs will prevent overdoses and adulteration, solving for the vast majority of drug-related deaths. These alone save thousands of lives every year, which seems to be the biggest impact in the round. Even if my opponent won that legalization increases crime, he hasn't shown that it outweighs the benefits of solving the harms of drugs in the first place. For these reasons, I urge a Pro vote.