The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Topicality doesn't merit a rebuttal? Then why aren't we talking nuclear weapons? Because I guess arguments that don't in any way pertain to the resolution are completely fine. And if you're gonna cite the "Comments" section, I claim this to be completely abusive. You can't let others make your arguments for you. But I'll go along with it. I will post the emails of some people who agree with me... How about Neil Conrad, Aaron Timmons, Ben Lewis, Todd Liipfert, and Jake Nebel? Because I know they would tell you legalization is strictly non-topical. Do you know how I know? They told me. NEXT: You talk about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels. That's great. But you fail to recognize all gangs, meaning you assume what works for one will work for all. Thus, you still commit the fallacy. And then you go on to say "gangs in U.S. inner cities..." And you, once again, fail to address gangs worldwide. And they lose their main source of revenue, and then they find a new one. This does not decrease gang violence. Acknowledge the turn I placed in my last speech saying that increased accessibility due to legalization increases drug violence. NEXT: Who is to say legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban? The Iranian government certainly has no problem helping Hamas, so why wouldn't businesses support the Taliban? What if businesses did a backdoor deal? On your next argument, terrorists would be forced to sell their opium cheaper if businesses entered that market. NEXT: My point was that drug use EMPIRICALLY increases risky behavior, such as crime and unprotected sex. I'm not saying drug use is the main or only cause of crime, but it is a contributor. Also, aggression isn't synonymous with crime. For example, breaking into a gas station at night when it's closed isn't aggressive towards a person because there isn't a person there. Also, is unprotected sex aggressive? No. NEXT: Who truly respects every bit of the law? I love the criminal justice system, but personally I hate taxes. There are a few who respect every bit of the law, but if that's the only group of people who will respect the law after legalization, it's not worth it. NEXT: You never say that drugs were completely safe, or that people should combine them. I concede that. But why would you push a program that isn't safe? It doesn't seem like you would be operating within any parameter of safety... NEXT: I have looked at that graph multiple times. And I want every voter to look at page 38 of that book provided at the bottom of the book. And if you look closely... You can see that drug use increased! Seriously, people, go look at it. I will concede that multidrugs decreased somewhat after an initial RISE in use. NEXT: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions (Seattle: U.S. Department of Justice, 1994) 43. There's your cite. Read up. I'll break this down. Addiction leads to more drug use by the addict. Drug use leads to impaired judgment, meaning more risky behavior. These risky behaviors can be things like committing crimes, unprotected sex, and drugged driving. There's your evidence. NEXT: That sentence makes sense. What was I supposed to say, "Stealing of no drugs?" "No stealing of drugs" makes perfect sense. NEXT: I apologize for not having evidence on every single thing out there. I honestly don't have time to cross apply my CX hegemony cards and my drug cards. But I'll justify it anyways. People sense weakness in the government, and they believe it's ok to do drugs because they think they won't be caught red-handed. That's the reasoning, and it leads to higher drug use, thus more harms. You may argue this won't matter because drugs will be legal, but drug use will still go up. NEXT: And I am forced to ask, what do you propose we do? Get rid of the criminal justice system? I can tell from your picture and info you're an anarchist. But seriously, that's what you want? An unjust criminal justice system is better than none at all. I want all the voters to remember that. NEXT: That is not an appeal to emotion. If you can say your argument wasn't one, than neither is mine. My argument only shows that drug-users sometimes drive drugged, and sometimes harm others. That's all. If I really wanted to make an appeal to emotion, I could have added details. And how is that a "Proof by Example" fallacy? I'm not saying all drug users drive drugged, or all drugged drivers kill. Thus, I'm not fallacious. Once again, I don't need to have evidence for everything. I don't have time to have evidence for everything. But here: http://www.emsaonline.com... http://www.contentnejmorg.zuom.info... And you don't have to advocate it. It's something that comes along with drug use. Just like drunk driving. NEXT: Wait, so heroin addiction is caused by something other than heroin? That's odd... I will concede environmental factors are what make the addicts do heroin, but the heroin itself is responsible for its results and addiction. Also, what's wrong with using personal anecdotes? I don't see any reason why they're wrong to use. In summation, I want to point out that I have shown how drug use is harmful, and legalization only encourages drug use. I have defended the public health approach, and my opponent COMPLETELY DROPPED MY CASE. Any attempt to attack my case in the next speech is abusive. I have shown the negative effects associated with legalization, and successfully defended my position. You must vote Affirmative.