All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

-Values- Kozu says that I am moving the goal posts of this debate, namely that I am misrepresenting the American government. The evidence Kozu provides for this assertion is the existence of harms that have already been legalized like tobacco smoking. But Kozu's point completely ignores the existence of illegal harms like using or owning illegal harms like meth and heroine. I'm not saying that America doesn't value freedom. I'm saying that the American government holds many values in addition to freedom. The old American creed states "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Liberty constitutes only 1/3 of this creed. Kozu's position of decriminalizing every single victim-less crime ignores and often violates other parts of America's values. If anyone is guilty of moving the goalpost, it'd be Kozu. Kozu's arguments imply that Liberty is the most important value in all cases. This is where the value side of the debate comes in. Kozu says one thing about the American government. I say another. We disagree, so we debate it. My position states that America holds utilitarian values of life and happiness in addition to the value of freedom, and that American policies do weigh all three to some degree when considering policies. Kozu's position basically states that America rejects any and all sacrifices to liberty; liberty at any and all costs, even a complete annihiliation and sacrifice of Life and Pursuit of Happiness - utilitarian values. Obviously we are at odds here, but I think many would agree that Kozu's position is a lot more improbable and unreasonable. I don't see how I'm moving the goalpost. If Kozu can argue that America's sole value is that of liberty - self-interest, I can argue that it is not. While I do concede that some degree of sacrifice to liberty is made when we criminalize certain victim-less crimes, my argument has been that this sacrifice makes more sense in certain cases. This sacrifice is needed because there are other values besides liberty that need to be considered. Kozu's willingness to sacrifice all life and happiness for the sake of freedom is astounding. The values I put forth directly contradict the values needed for Kozu to win this debate since his entire set of arguments depends on the superiority of the value of liberty. I think Kozu loses this side of the debate, which means he fails to prove that all victim-less crimes deserve to be decriminalized. By this argument, I win the debate. -Victim-less Crimes- Correct. I do need to show that all parties involved are consenting, but Kozu gives me a really inconsistent criteria to determine involvement. This is where I think I win this argument. Kozu's inconsistency in rejecting some victim-less crimes with this criteria while allowing others to qualify with these same criteria invalidates many of his refutations. I do not need to show that my drug-addict neighbor is infringing on my autonomy because as I've been arguing this whole time through the value side of this debate, autonomy, self interest - liberty & freedom, do not represent the only values that lawmakers consider when making a law. Kozu's implied assertion that all other values are discarded is unreasonable and unfounded. The neighbor example depends on value assertions to which I've thoroughly responded. So again, Kozu defends the claim that all victim-less crimes should be decriminalized. If I can show any single victim-less crime to not deserve decriminalization, then I win this debate. --Drug Use-- Drugs like meth and heroin are the worst drugs in the world. Heroin has an estimated 23% addiction rate for users[1]. Heroin destroys the body, and creates one of the strongest physical addictions of any drug. According to many sources, heroin's use and even just its withdrawal can be fatal. Heroin is illegal everywhere, but heroin has been shown to be largely responsible for 4 out of 5 drug-related deaths according to a 2008 report.[2] There is a very severe violation of life and consequently the pursuit of happiness in the case of heroin. Drug use should remain criminalized. --Suicide & Assisted Suicide-- I think the value argument proves that this point should not be decriminalized. This takes a little bit of value judgment. I think that in some cases, assisted suicide should be allowed. Like, if someone is suffering a terrible terminal illness, then that person is totally entitled to ask for euthanasia. Not all cases would be like this, and I think general legalization of assisted suicide should not happen. Assisted suicide should be provided in certain professional, medical or similar such environments. Laymen should not be able to provide that service, and should be punished for trying to do so. The case against assisted suicide is based in large part on my value case. Assisted suicide abets the value of freedom, but heavily infringes on life and consequently pursuit of happiness. This is very similar to the drug case, but the rate of death in this case is 100%. -Regular Crimes- Basically Kozu makes the same refutation for Tax evasion, drunk driving, and child prostitution - that they are regular crimes. Kozu is basically saying that for something to be a victim-less crime, it can't be a regular crime. According to Kozu, if it is a regular crime, then it's not a victim-less crime. This is simply not true. A lot of crimes, like the possession and use of heroin, are both victim-less and regular. Again, Kozu makes half-qualifying criteria for some things but don't apply it to others. Kozu agrees that all drug use are victim-less crimes, but some of these drugs are also regular crimes. According to Kozu's case, these drugs aren't victim-less crimes. Living under the law, all citizens agree to obey the law. The law states that possession and use of some drugs is illegal. Does that mean that these drugs aren't victim-less crimes? According to Kozu's refutation to Tax evasion, drunk driving and child prostitution, that would be the case. But Kozu clearly believes that all drug use qualify as victim-less crimes. Kozu can't have it both ways. His refutation is inconsistent, and so it fails. If Kozu believes all drug use to be victim-less crimes, then his refutation cannot stand. Any victim-less crime that has yet to be decriminalized - any victim-less crime that is illegal - that Kozu accepts as a victim-less crime further stacks as evidence of Kozu's argumentative inconsistency. So I want to conclude that tax evasion, drunk driving, and prostitution should all remain criminalized, each with the reasons I've originally attached to them. Conclusion: Kozu has thus far been unable to demonstrate how autonomy is the only value worth considering in America's lawmaking system. I don't need to show that autonomy - liberty - is not sacrificed. I chose to show that the sacrifice in liberty is justified. Kozu doesn't really come up with a strong response to that, and so he sacrifices the entire values on which his arguments are founded. Kozu does not satisfactorily prove that all victim-less crimes should be decriminalized. On the other hand, I think I've satisfactorily shown that not all victim-less crimes should be decriminalized - that some victim-less crimes should stay criminalized. Kozu, you've been delightfully challenging, and I really enjoyed this debate. [1] http://www.drugabuse.gov... [2] http://www.drugfreeworld.org...