"Marijuana, Cocaine and even Heroin Should be Legalized." -Ron Paul

I'll refute his points and in doing so reaffirm some of my own arguments where necessary and finish with some concluding remarks. CON says: "Although accountability for my choices should be mine alone, THE RESULTS OF MY CHOICES AFFECT SOCIETY AT LARGE. "CON's principle concern is the impact that he believes drug use has on society at large, and because of that societal impact, legislation is necessary to countermand that bad outcome in defense of the common good. I would like to suggest the following:Drug use does not necessarily have an impact on society at large, positive or negative. Let's suppose that a marijuana smoker, or other person who uses cocaine or heroin in the privacy of their own home consumes any one of the aforementioned substances in the privacy of his own home, where he remains until the effects of the substance have passed. Let's stipulate that the substances in question were bought and paid for by money that the individual in question earned legally. Let's further stipulate that such a person has neither a wife or other immediate family who depend on him. ==> In that case, the drug user's individual choice to use drugs has no broader societal impact in that instance. Let's suppose that a marijuana smoker, or other person who uses cocaine or heroin in the privacy of their own home consumes any one of the aforementioned substances in the privacy of his own home, where he remains until the effects of the substance have passed. But this time, let's stipulate that the substances in question were bought and paid for by money that the individual in question obtained from selling items he or she stole to support a drug habit. However, let's hold constant that such a person has neither a wife or immediate family who depend on him. ==> In that case, the drug user's individual choice to use drugs still has no broader societal impact in that instance either, because even though he or she stole the belongings of another, it cannot be said that the drugs are themselves to blame for the individual's choice to steal. How can this be? Whether a person is on drugs or not, even if they are addicted, they are nevertheless still responsible for their actions. To blame the drugs is to allow the thief to escape responsibility. It was not the drugs, but the bad choices of an individual -the choice to violate another's property rights- that caused the person in question to harm others. To make this perfectly clear: drug use is absolutely, and unavoidably an individual choice. If individuals are accountable for their actions, then whether drugs are legal or illegal if people take drugs and proceed to harm others they are still accountable. If people are accountable, then they -not drugs- are blameworthy and ought to be subject to punishment when they choose to harm others or violate others rights because the fact that a person uses drugs does not diminish their capacity to know right from wrong. It is not necessary, then, to make drugs illegal -because responsible individuals will choose not to use drugs and irresponsible individuals will pay for the consequences of their actions if they choose to harm others. CON, however, remains concerned that the common good may not be protected in the absence of laws which make drugs illegal He asks: "Do we now legalize selling? . .. . Do we legalize impaired driving as a free choice? . .. . Who should pay for my increased use of the medical system? . .. . [Who] pays the social cost of my addictions or habits? Do we refuse to treat people for medical problems that are a direct result of their bad choices? "It seems to me to be the case that people use drugs anyway, whether they are legal or illegal so my opponent's implied assumption that 'if drugs are illegal, then people won't use drugs' is negated and his concerns about selling, driving under the influence, or increased medical expenses are rendered moot because Canada -and to a large extent, the United States as well- already pays many costs associated with drug use from incarceration to rehabilitation and treatment. Whether I think they should or not, however, is tangential to this debate. Even still, if to protect the common good is con's purpose (which is to say, to minimize drug use), his means to that end seems to fall in that it is at best inefficacious, if not counterproductive. The research suggesting the failure of the American drug war is staggering, but I digress. .. .Curiously, pro argues: "ANARCHY IS BAD! " Well. .. maybe. .. maybe not. That too is beyond the scope of this debate. Even so, his claim that "most of our freedoms are limited" misses the point. That government -as a statement of fact- does limit individual freedom by unnecessarily restricting individual choice does not mean that government OUGHT to do so or that it has a right to do so (and so, for that same reason, pro's mention that some countries punish pot trafficking with execution holds no water for the same reason). But, this isn't a debate about anarchy -this is a debate about the extent to which government ought to restrict individual choice by regulating drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin. CON seems to assume that keeping drugs illegal somehow serves some social utility -when the fact that people in countries use 'illegal' drugs proves that he is in fact mistaken. Again, at best making drugs illegal does not curtail drug use, at worse it exacerbates drug use. So, government is implementing policy that does not do what it purports to 'ought' to do, and we know this by the failure of government to -through policy- eliminate drug use in culture. Additionally, CON disputes the relevancy of human dignity to this debate -which is problematic because in his introduction that: "our debate is more about the role of government in private life. " If the government's role in citizen's private lives is not to defend and uphold their human dignity, then such a government could not be just because only that form of governance which is based on defense of the rights of the governed can be just. Said another way, just government must uphold and defend human dignity (the source of rights) as its foremost obligation to the governed, because it is for that purpose that governments are created among men. If government becomes destructive to those ends, it is the right -or, perhaps even the obligation- of the people to alter or abolish it and erect new government that the blessings of liberty and freedom are enjoyed by society (yes, I was pulling from Jefferson in that sentence). So, because to defend human dignity -that is, to not unnecessarily regulate their private lives- by upholding the rights of the governed is the preeminent task of government, individual choice cannot be the opportunity cost of legislation in defense of the "greatest good" because only that legislation which upholds individual rights can serve the greatest good. Therefore, it it is necessary that drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin ought to be legalized. Note on sources:I didn't consult any in the process of writing this round.