End Prohibition, Drugs Become Public Health Issue

My opponent states that, "I believe drug abuse should be a public health issue, which means users and abusers do not face criminal penalties," By inference my opponent refers to the use of illegal recreational drugs, as previously noted in Canada and the USA. I object to this on the basis that drug abuse has been made a crime, because drug abuse threatens the health of the user, those around them and the wider society. Cannabis one of the more benign of the illegal recreational drugs has been shown to cause permanent damage to mental health, including paranoia, anxiety attacks and schizophrenia. In addition it can reduce reaction times, driving whilst under the influence of cannabis is therefore a threat to the wider society. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... If the health effects of drug abuse were limited solely to the user/abuser then that would be a point in favour of my opponents proposition. But it is clear that these conditions provide a threat to the liberties and quality of life of others. Thus drug abuse must remain a criminal matter. That is before we address the terrible effects of Cocaine, LSD and Heroin etc. There is also a direct correlation between drug abuse and crime, not merely due to the criminality of the drugs themselves (which obviously would be negated by my opponents proposal), but by addicts who are attempting to fund their habits. Though it can be argued that legalisation would increase the availability and reduce the cost of such drugs, many drug abusers are currently unable or unwilling to hold down a job and so would still resort to crime. If anything the number of these criminal drug users would increase under my opponents suggestion. By treating the catalyst of these crimes, and the crime itself as crimes the police are more able to deal with the overall rate of crime. My opponent further argues that drug uses are not to be prosecuted "but are offered treatment for their addiction in an open ended, government funded center. " My opponent clearly states that the treatment will be ‘offered', this implies that such treatment will be entirely voluntary. I observe that drug abuse is a threat to the health of the user, their friends, families and the wider society. Drug abuse also tends to be addictive. As drug abuse is harmful to society and as drug abuse tends to be addictive then it must be noted that in the former case we would like the users to accept treatment, in the latter case it is questionable how many would. We can not expect a typical Heroin addict to volunteer for drug rehabilitation/treatment, nor having done so to remain in a such a program purely through the strength of their own willpower. It is clear that such treatment deserves a certain amount of coercion and would only be effective through the use of coercion. The current system, where drug addicts are punished, removed from the society they threaten and often required to face rehabilitation or treatment as part of their sentence is clearly superior, thus my opponents resolution is negated. It is also amoral to expect society and specifically the tax payer to tolerate the social cost of drugs without protest, yet then be forced to pay for the drug abusers treatment. This is especially relevant in the USA, why should the tax payer pay for the self-inflicted problem of drug abuse when the rest of society is expected to fend for themselves? My opponents argues that one of the benefits of his proposal will be that, "This would remove much of the racial stereotype seen with arrests for possession of illegal drugs. " I believe that this is the least of our worries, no one really cares what the race is of the person caught dealing drugs to their children, or to which race a drug fuelled mugger belongs to. I would also point out that drug abuse is a noted facet of numerous cultures. "This would save billions of dollars in police processing fees, court fees, incarceration fees, and potential recidivism costs. Money would also be saved with the end of prohibition world wide, including all border regions, bribe costs to maintain prohibition, less violence and therefore less collateral damage to pay for, ect. " Though it can't be denied that there would not be certain ‘savings' in some areas, the issue is that the net cost to society will increase. My opponents proposal is to argue that Heroin use be considered a similar ‘condition' to alcoholism. "These savings would go towards prevention methods, which would be intelligent and factual pieces of information spanning across all forms of media and entertainment in order to educate ages child to adult. " More effective prevention methods would however be more police and tougher sentences for drug abusers. Educating children on the nature of these dangerous drugs removes the stigma that ought to be associated with their use and encourages them to think of drug abuse as a manageable risk, such as going to bar or indulging in red meat. Finally my opponent argues that, "By removing prohibition, the existence of the black market would dwindle considerably as see with the end of alcohol prohibition, and the move into a legal and regulated market. " Though that is true, alcohol which is only dangerous through excessive consumption is not analogous to such drugs as say Heroin. Which can be instantly addictive or even fatal with the first use. A better analogy would be between the ending of alcohol prohibition and the hypothetical legalisation of Russian Roulette. Thus I propose that the current system is superior to my opponents proposal and thus my opponents proposal is negated.