Mexico's Problem With Drug Cartel Warrants United States Military Intervention

Thanks Pro. I'll do rebuttal now, mostly clearing up statements made in this round.My Opponent argues that moonshine is still bootlegged. I have a few responses.--> I'll take your word for it, but the impact is obviously much less now than in the past.--> Most moonshiners turned to more profitable ventures after Prohibition, and the black market largely dissappeared. Sure, some remnants may exist, but the fact of the matter is that legalization destroys the vast majority of the black market.--> Turn: Prohibition shows us that criminalization of substances large amounts of people want is not substainable. --> Turn: You never hear about people being killed in the illegal alcohol market, because either A) The black market no longer exists in which case you vote Con, or B) The violent aspect of the black market no longer exists in which case you vote Con.--> Turn: Government regulation would lead to drugs being safer because they have to meet certain standards.Pro further argues: "Prescription drugs are commonly find their way in the wrong hands or are abused by those they are prescribed to leading to overdoses. This "historical precedent" shows that the same will likely be true if current drugs deemed illicit were to be legalized."--> Recall how I previously stated that the abuse of these drugs was already illegal, showing that criminalization does not deter.--> Pros argument is that perscription drugs fall into the wrong hands. Again, abuse is already illegal. Criminalization dos not deter. --> Correlation =/= Causation, legal drugs killing more people does not lead to the conclusion Pro is trying to suggest, that legalization facilitates abuse. More people take prescription drugs than recreational drugs. I can personally attest to this, as I have never taken any illicit drug nor legal drugs such as tabacco or hookah. I can however think of many specific cases in which I have taken prescription drugs.Pro further argues that cartels are involved in other crimes, but he ignores all of my analysis on that point and how it is turned to my side, so you can extend that.Pro then quotes yours truly about the relationship between drugs and crime. I'm flattered that he thinks I'm a reliable enough source to quote from, however unfortunately for him since those were my own arguments, I more than anyone else can see the weaknesses in them.Let's have me eat my own words now.."'In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs"--> Cool story, too bad correlation=/= causation. Recall how those in poverty or the inner city are both far more likely to both abuse drugs and to commit crime. There are much larger factors at work here than simply the drugs themseves.--> Turn: The criminalization of drugs makes potential users have to associate with criminals and cartels, facilitating cime and violence." Among State prisoners, drug offenders (44%) and property offenders (39%) reported the highest incidence of drug use at the time of the offense. Among Federal prisoners, drug offenders (32%) and violent offenders (24%) were the most likely to report drug use at the time of their crimes."--> Cool story, and I bet 100% of them had Vitaman C in their body at the time, but that doesn't mean Vitamin C causes crime. Correlation=/= Causation. --> Remember that since it's been shown that criminalization doesn't deter, this impact is minimal.--> Also remember that the crime argument has been turned multiple times to the Con side.My nuclear war impact is for the most part ignored, Pro argues "all of our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material." Who was arguing that? I certainly wasn't. But getting involved in a war with our Neighbors certainly distracts our efforts. Border fence is also ignored. Pro only restates his already refuted statements from round two.The CP of executing all foreign drug offenders is also dropped, and therefore conceded to.Pro then gives us a lot of evidence that cartels are bad. I am not disputing this, which is exactly why you need to vote Con. Pro's value of life is undermined because a war would cost thousands of lives. Pros crime argument has been turned. Pro deterrence argument has been turned. Two of my counterplans have been conceded to. Pros only objections on my legalzation counterplan have been refuted. Pro gains no solvency because he hasn't explained why a foreign military (U.S.) could accomplish what the military of Mexico has failed to do.Cartels are bad, which is why you should vote Con to end them.Thanks,thett3