The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

I would like to swiftly counter each one of my opponent's arguments in turn.1) Though tax dollars are being spent, I would like to counter the fact that drug offenders are taking up space that could be used for more serious offenders. I would simply like to state that this is false, and unless my opponent can prove that the courts are not placing more serious criminals in prison because there is no room due to all the drug offenders, my opponent's argument is completely unfounded.Furthermore let me make mention of the failures of other places that have legalized drugs. In Amsterdam, a place seen as a haven for drug users, has 7000 addicts, about 20 percent of which are foreigners. These same addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime within the city. A legalization experiment in Switzerland failed when it resulted in a higher rate of other crimes, violence, and health costs. In the late 1800s, opium was legal in China leading to 9,000,000 becoming addicted to the drug. The idea that drugs should be legalized because it is simply a choice, has shown to be detrimental to the way these previous societies functioned. Why repeat their mistakes? [1]2) My opponent claims that by making only meth and heroin illegal, drug related deaths will go away. However, my opponent is forgetting one important fact. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that people will not use it. After all, it is illegal now and it still the cause of thousands of deaths per year. This is of course, not counting the hundreds of people dying of cocaine and other drugs daily. In fact "In the United States, cocaine deaths are implicated in 10 out of every 1000 deaths in hospital emergency unit"[2] My opponent either did not know this statistic or willfully ignored it, but either way this also debunks his theory that there would be "no need to worry about death from drugs".3) This does not further my opponent's argument that drugs should be legalized in the slightest. It is simply a statement admitting that there are dangers of drugs and that they are currently spoken about in school.Now, I need only prove that one drug need be made illegal to fulfill my burden of proof. I would like to offer up cocaine as an example of one such drug as well as a drug known as krokodil. It's a drug more addictive than heroin, causes the average addict to have a lifespan of about two years after addiction, is cheaper and easier to make than heroin, has been ravishing Russia for some time now, and causes untold devastation on the body, including but not limited to, causing skin to become infected, scaly, and dry, blood vessels around the infected area bursting and the skin starting to die. [3]Now with effects worse than heroin, and this drug being easier to make, what argument does my opponent have to present in order to justify the legalization of such a drug. Let me remind you that my opponent thought heroine and meth to be pure poison and thus should not be legalized for that reason. If my opponent concedes that krokodil should be legal, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof for the debate, however, if my opponent wishes to argue that krokodil should be legal, than they must somehow show the effects of krokodil to be less than "pure poison".I await my opponent's response.Sources:[1] www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths4.htm[2] http://www.stopcocaineaddiction.com...[3] http://content.time.com...