Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

*Parameters* For saving characters: We're talking only about ecstasy pills containing MDMA, to maintain consistency. 1. Dangers a. My opponent first discusses how we could take the current legal stipulations for tobacco, and apply them to MDMA and marijuana; my two issues with this argument are: i) I agree with my opponent; we certainly COULD impose the same restrictions; however, this resolution is not asking for what we have the capability to do - Pro never gives us any legitimate reason to impose these standards on MDMA and tobacco beyond expansion of the status quo over other drugs; this leads me to: ii) My opponent never offers any logical support as to why current legal standards are something that need to be kept; it could easily be argued by me that, because tobacco carries a definite risk of self-harm, jeopardizing both life and all subsequent rights, that these current legal standards ought to be repealed; remember, folks, we're arguing for how things should be; don't let my opponent trick you into accepting an is/ought situation (X is, therefore, X ought to be). b. First of all, let me redirect the voters to the parameters of the debate, in which my opponent agreed that we aren't discussing the legality or harms of other drugs, including alcohol; even accepting the analogy, my opponent is making a fallacious comparison by assuming that, because one harmful substance is permissible, that another harmful substance ought also be permissible; don't let yourselves be fooled here; I shouldn't need to attack every 'example' that Pro provides, suffice to say the difference between these examples and our 3 drugs will become self-evident; her argument next centers on personal responsibility; understand, folks, that if drug users continue to consume these drugs (MDMA/Marijuana) under illegal conditions, they are in no way demonstrating any kind of personal responsibility; they are not only knowingly choosing to disobey written laws at the time, but they are doing it for purposes of self-harm, perhaps harm of others, if these drugs are distributed among friends or buyers; because of this, users and sellers have proven themselves to be irresponsible, which in turn proves that the government can't simply give them the benefit of the doubt, since the users in question don't have the capability to make responsible decisions. 2. I think Lwerd skipped 2; or, just refer to the above paragraph. 3. Medical Benefits a. All of the medical ‘benefits' of marijuana use are really a moot point; the benefits she shows are nothing more than pain reduction and stomach settlers; this is hardly a ‘plethora'; she never provides any evidence that shows marijuana to actually help in treating these diseases. My evidence, on the other hand, is ignored by Pro: it clearly shows that, while there may be medical ‘benefits' for marijuana, consumption of the drug can actually accelerate the diseases that it's helping to treat; in the C-B Analysis, aggravation and acceleration of these diseases trumps temporary pain/nausea relief. Furthermore, my evidence revealed marijuana to be an immunosuppressant, which weakens a patient's immune system, making them more susceptible to infections and cancer, also helping to speed along the development of HIV into full-blown AIDS; ironically, though marijuana may calm the nausea from chemotherapy, it increases the risk of fatality by weakening the immune system more than chemotherapy already does; this, too, trumps temporary pain relief. b. Also, to save on characters, just note that Lwerd ignores all of the psychological damages of marijuana consumption for patients and recreational users alike; you can refer back to Point D on my first contention in Round 2. c. My opponent makes the claim that ecstasy can be used, in small doses, to treat things like depression; first of all, though, I'd like to clarify that, if we cannot keep something illegal due to "potential harms" as Pro states earlier, then we certainly can't legalize it for "great potential for positive use". We're going to need more conclusive evidence than that, Pro; however, the multitude of evidence I have in round 2 has shown that, not only can ecstasy actually bring about depression (as opposed to treating it), use of the drug can cause other disorders, like extreme anxiety, heavy memory loss, in addition to the possibility of killing first-time users! And, whereas MDMA has only potential positive uses, it has a guaranteed harm: As my evidence provided, ecstasy use is guaranteed to cause brain damage to even first-time users. Clearly, the possibility of treating depression is outweighed by the greater possibilities of other disorders, first-time death, and guaranteed brain damage. d. The next argument of Pro's is irrelevant; I have never claimed that marijuana is a gateway drug, nor have I claimed that ecstasy puts holes in one's brain; also, the first-time brain damage ‘assertion' is actually a valid argument backed by medical study; however, I grant that space is limited. It sucks. e. My opponent provides the possibility of using tobacco smoke to decrease blood clots; however, there are far worse costs with smoking tobacco, including several different types of cancer, addictions, respiratory issues, and several more [http://pma.sparks.org...]. Clearly, even assuming the one benefit Pro provides to be worthy, the greater number of guaranteed harms, one being those respiratory issues, trumps the medical possibilities of tobacco; furthermore, extend the argument from Point C in my 3rd Contention dealing with the harms of tobacco not being limited only to smoking. 4. Personal Benefits a. "Since the inception of this country, people have been smoking tobacco." <- This could well be an ad populum and an appeal to tradition all wrapped in one; you decide, voters. b. My opponent's argument returns to the idea of responsible action, but apply what I've said before; by choosing to consume these harmful substances, especially against the law, these users have proven that they cannot, in this respect, make responsible choices, ergo do not deserve that option; furthermore, Pro has yet to prove why something being "fun" is a legitimate reason for a harmful substance to be legalized. At this point, it's "fun" vs. safety; when "fun" puts a person's own rights (or the rights of others) in jeopardy, even inadvertently, clearly the protection of rights takes precedence. The government's job is to protect its citizens, as the citizen is part of the society in question. 5. Legal benefits a. Pro never provides any logical support as to why this need should be eliminated; my opponent's ‘money-saving' argument is based on the premise that the money is being spent on a bad cause, which has yet to be proven; this is a premise that she as Pro has a burden to prove, not an inherent truth in the resolution; ergo, her conclusion is also flawed, and can be disregarded. b. Again, the choices people are making aren't responsible; furthermore, Pro has yet to prove that legalization will provide more democracy, and also yet to prove that any increase in democracy and liberty is automatically good. c. Agreed, we should eliminate corrupt bureaucracy; however, if the government will be regulating and selling these drugs instead of chasing after dealers, it's likely that this corruption won't be eliminated; only moved. d. Black markets will still flourish for those who which to get what the government cannot or will not provide in terms of drugs; ergo, legalization doesn't discourage illicit sales. e. Tobacco is regulated, but yet still has a lot of inherent harms. f. Drugs shouldn't be legalized just so people won't get into trouble. 6. Financial Benefits a. This is simply a repetition of the earlier ‘lower taxes' argument; also, I pose to you your question to me: Why is money more important to the state than the well-being of citizens?