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

Hello everyone. I'd like to thank my opponent for presenting the debate. Today I will be arguing for the resolution "The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice. " Before I start, I would like to make three points which are encouraged notes to keep in mind when reading both my and my opponents arguments. 1) My opponent has not made the distinction between "abuse of illegal drugs" and the "illegal drugs" themselves. There is a cross between the two in my opponents argumentation and my first order of business will be to make a distinction between the two terms, how they apply to the resolution and how the distinction between the two affects the discussion of the debate. 2) Much of my opponents argumentation comes from source quoting. I would like to disregard much of this as an assertion fallacy, however, for the purposes of keeping this a respectful & meaningful, I will try to make out what my opponent is saying and see whether or not this is still holds true for his/her position. 3) My opponent has attempted to create a biased resolution. While the case I am arguing is consistent, that abuse of illegal drugs is a matter of public health, my opponent attempts to take a neutral position make the case for why both of these must be considered, and not one or the other. He says that the resolution appeals in his favor, but nowhere in the resolution does it appeal to one side or the other (it doesn't say, "must be treated SOLELY as a matter of public health" or "solely of criminal justice"). In the interests of the debate, I will continue to argue that the ABUSE of illegal drugs ought to be treated solely as a matter of public health, rather than solely as an act of criminal justice (as the resolution implies). To start the debate, I will introduce the purpose of anti-drug policy today. I would like to then review what my opponent has said and see if these points still stand. Then, in light of the utilitarian values that my opponent has proposed, I will make a case for why when drug abuse is treated as an issue of public health not as criminal justice it is my utilitarian & thus better for society. So, let us begin. What is integral to this debate is to understand what the purpose of anti-drug policy is. The purpose of anti-drug policy is clear, to nullify illicit drug use. There are four essential pillars to reducing illicit drug abuse: prevention, treatment, harm-reduction and enforcement. What this debate ultimately comes down to is whether or not law enforcement or deterrence is a more effective way of reducing drug abuse versus treatment & harm reduction (or by addressing the issue of drug abuse as a matter of public health concern) more effective in reducing drug abuse. I would like to present the following two rebuttals in favor of my case: 1) Addiction is in fact a disease not a crime - We have to understand the addiction is a physiological and psychological burden on the individual who has continually used the drug. My opponent has misunderstood how the addiction really affects the role in which responsibility plays when the act of abusing the drug takes place. The opponent used sources to indicate claims like, "most addicts should be responsible for most criminal behavior motivated by addiction, but … addiction can in some cases affect the person's ability to grasp and be guided by reason. Yet, criminal law is about actions and not about genetics. ". While I contest, addiction is not a hereditary disease (it's not something you genetically inherit), but something that develops from prolonged cyclically reinforced drug abuse (the more you do it, the more you are addicted). Once the addiction develops, the person's will & reason is deeply weakened in its role to prevent further drug abuse. Thus, it is appropriate to discern, criminal law is not about conscious actions. It doesn't apply to an unconscious desire like the addiction (that develops physiologically & psychologically from drug use). Health care is more appropriate to deal with the issue because it treats addiction properly - as a disease and not a crime. What we have to understand is that it is not the drug abuse that is the enemy but the drug itself. After a person is afflicted with drug addiction, when they are seeking treatment and want help, where ought we put them? To jails or to treatment beds? To law enforcement or to health professionals? 2) Criminal justice deters from not promotes towards treatment What has been the most integral movement in anti-drug policy in recent history? The War On Drugs. Championed by president Ronald Reagan, the War on Drugs is a movement primarily focused on law enforcement and criminal justice to deter and ultimately stop illicit drug abuse. However, it has been constantly concluded by the media, the public at large and even governments themselves that this is a wrong approach. What I will be arguing in this argument is why criminal justice sometimes does not work with treatment, but against it. It's really in the title, WAR on drugs. In the War on Drugs, we must discern who is the enemy, and it's very clear - the enemy includes the addicts, the users, the dealers, anyone who poses a threat. A massive a stigma is being perpetrated against drug abuse - addicts are singled out & excluded as a blight on society. However, addiction is a blight, addicts are not. Addicts are human beings who need to be treated like diseased human beings, human beings who need help. They need to be treated as those who are sick, not as "criminals", not as "drug users". I've attested in my previous point, when the addiction gets so serious, when the drug abuse hits its critical point - the user is no longer using the drug, the drug is using them. And so, these people conscious of what is happening to them, they are conscious of the burden of the drug, both on their mind, their state of being psychologically but also physiologically - the danger of cardiac arrest, liver failure, heart failure - of their impending mortality. These individuals need to be treated, not stigmatized. They need to be put into treatment, not into jails. Does law enforcement coercion deter people from using drugs? No, if anything, it encourages them. If people are stigmatized against authority, they will use drugs to rebel. The war on drugs has been carried out for decades, yet drugs are cheaper, easier to get and more dangerous than ever before. Law enforcement is not in control, the dealers are. Law enforcement work against addicts not with them. People are stigmatized against, and thus people are much more afraid to approach our police authority & subsequent treatment and rehabilitation. It's a statistical reality. I would now like to close by examining the utilitarian values that my partner has espoused and see whether or not these fall into my favor or his. Justice: My partner assumes that justice is always brought down rightly. However, he ignores that justice is imperfect, and it is precisely the purpose of this debate to examine whether or not it is just to treat addiction or drug abuse as a matter of public health. If it does (and I have made the case for why it does) then the justice perpetrated is immoral & doesn't benefit society. Equality/Democracy: My opponent has misunderstood the fact that individuals burdened by drug abuse are addicts who need medical treatment like anyone else afflicted by disease. They should be treated equally to those of health care patients. Thus ultimately, the utilitarian values better promote drug abuse when treated as a health concern vs criminal justice.