The existence of harmful non-prescription drugs is a bad thing to our society!

Now about the grammar thing. I as a voter on this site only take grammar into my votes if the debater has severely misspelled words, or is using inappropriate language or immature "lingoes and slang". I doubt the voters will care, or you will care, but some might care. Now on to it. 1). Answer to first question: When I talk about drugs, I relate to the topic. This debate includes heroin, cigars, cigarettes, cannabis, meth, E-cigarettes, illegal recreational drugs, tobacco products, and basically all of the street drugs. Just to clarify. 2). Rebuttal to 2nd rebuttal: "I would also like to address the quote that you made: ". That statement you made at the end of your contention 1 seemed to have minimal backing to it. I couldn't see how drugs now don't pose any threats. You arguments didn't back this up." First of all, I would like to ask what you meant by "Contention 1." What I mean is your contention 1, or rebuttal. You didn't label it as contention 1, but I assumed it was contention 1. You state that pondera makes drugs harmless. This makes no sense. Not every druggie is going to take pondera. It sounds trustworthy and effective, but that doesn't mean everyone who is on drugs is going to take it for sure. Those who do take it will see that the harms of the drugs will go away. Smallpox has a vaccine, but that doesn't mean that if a strain was to appear in non-vaccinated people that it would be "harmless". Sure the threat to society can be neutralized in a way, but this may not be as easy as it seems. The threat is still there in non-pondera takers, and to get the drug to all people in America and in many other countries would be very hard and complicated. 3). Rebuttal to rebuttal 3: " If the drug addicts want security and relaxation, get a security camera and a bed. There are lots of non-harmful (and not as costly) ways to relax properly. (Source: Life-Hacker is BAE) If you look on the source, it provides you with a lot of easy ways to provide yourself with relaxation. Best of all, you don't have to suffer from headaches or brain damage. Also, the source that you mentioned isn't an article, it's a video. " You have a point, in a way. Sure there are better and non-harmful ways to relax, but most druggies will be willing to stay addicted no matter what "life hacks" you throw at them. I looked up life hacks, and the results I got where off topic, and seemed frankly as money saving techniques. Anyways, it was irrelevant in a way to the debate. And when I stated security, I meant being comfortable with your life, not a guard or dead bolted door. Addicts will think of being secure, but the sense is false, as they are being robbed of their life and money by drug dealers and companies. I guess it is still their fault, but why keep drugs anyways if they only help these so called "disobedient people" lose their lives faster, and have less chance of rehabilitation. 4). Rebuttal to rebuttal 4: " Doesn't that mean that the government should ban car companies as well? After all, cars kill thousands of people every year, just like drugs." Yeah they do, but this is from drivers being given licenses to early in their lives. I made an entire debate on this, so you will see useful points about this in that debate if you look at it. Anyways, I am starting to veer off topic. The drug companies sell products that WILL kill you if you use them correctly. Car companies sell cars that when used incorrectly will kill you. Most products will do something undesired or bad when used incorrectly. Such as alcohol, one of the least horrible drugs out their for society. Drugs will always hurt you even when used correctly (except alcohol in most cases). 5). Rebuttal to rebuttal 5: I guess I win on that one. My opponent conceded on this small, inner topic of the debate. 6). Counter arguments: "First of all, drugs control the population. They kill off the disobedient people that can't follow society's laws. " Now, what you are saying is that humans should be using artificial selection on the population. That is basically what you are saying, and isn't artificial selection wrong. This is especially wrong on HUMAN BEINGS! So let's say that using this logic, we should just kill every poor citizen in Africa and Asia. After all, they aren't helping society in any way... They just starve and die in Africa, and our military has to help them. Your logic on that point was completely flawed, and I just proved it. 7). My arguments: We can't use or allow artificial selection on humans, for it is unconstitutional. The American constitution will not allow for people to simply say, "kill everyone who doesn't do it the right way." Sure I think we shouldn't have people taking drugs, but just letting them die and our environment get destroyed is unacceptable. Hitler said to kill all the Jews because they didn't practice his set religion. Wouldn't WE be breaking the laws of society by allowing this to happen to drug addicts? Good luck.