The United States should legalize all drugs

I accept Con's observation -- if he can show that even one drug should not be legal, Con wins. But new arguments in the final round are not allowed. The rules aren't contestable. New arguments in the final round are abusive. If Con makes new arguments in the final round, vote Pro on abuse. All of Con's arguments -- including secondhand impact -- fail for one reason: legalizing drugs won't cause more harm. The status quo and drug prohibition are ineffective. As I proved last round, the prohibition doesn't deter people from the usage of drugs at all. The deterrent effect is swiftly breaking down. In fact, drug prohibition causes *easier* access to drugs, because under my plan, there will be strict restrictions on the sale of drugs -- e. g. sell drugs to only those with an identity confirmation that proves they are over 21 in age, etc. In the status quo, drug cartels (which would collapse due to competition by legal drug trade under my plan) sell drugs to everyone, including children. That's why, as the Cato Institute confirms, drug use would decrease under legalization. [Source 3, Rd. 2. ] In my argument, I said that the status quo has some effect on drugs -- I'm kicking that concession. Ignore what I said regarding that. Drug prohibition doesn't reduce use of drugs. Vote Pro right there. Con's defense of the status quo doesn't solve any of the harms he lists. As evidenced by his rebuttal of the harm principle, Con concedes the harm principle, and accepts that his burden is to demonstrate that drugs harm others, and that usage of drugs is an other-regarding act rather than a self-regarding act. If I can refute all of Con's offense regarding drugs harming people who don't use drugs, then vote Pro by default on the harm principle. The only means by which Con tries to refute the harm principle is by secondhand impacts and economic harms -- if I refute both, then vote Pro. Moving onto Con's arguments: First, secondhand impact There's a single solution to all of the offense Con lists. My plan involves a ban on public usage of drugs. Prohibit drugs in public places. Usage of drugs in front of other people, thus harming them, is responsible for the secondhand impact caused by drugs. Thus, I propose that "drug zones" be built, specific areas where people can use drugs, similar to "smoking zones" in Kenya. This completely stops the secondhand impact. Furthermore, as seen by my first observation, more drugs are used in the status quo than they would be used if drugs are legalized. This means there's more secondhand impact in the status quo than there would be under my plan. Link turn this argument. Since drugs are used without restrictions in public under the status quo, and my plan solves such restrictions, secondhand impact is a reason to legalize drugs. Con never establishes a clear link or impact as to how drugs would harm the economy, outside of lost productivity. I accept that deaths cause less productivity, but Con fails to show how it outweighs the massive economic benefits that come with drug legalization. The status quo causes a government expenditure of $41.6 billion annually, which is entirely removed by the plan. Furthermore, if drugs were taxed at comparative rates with tobacco and alcohol, they would also generate an annual tax revenue of $46.7 billion. The economic harms argument is also turned because more drugs are used in the status quo than in the plan, meaning there's more lost productivity in the status quo than in the plan. This just adds to my economic benefits argument, and provides further reason to vote Pro. There's also the government expenditure in prison maintenance that is reduced, furthering the positive impact of drug legalization on the economy. The health issues argument is defeated by the harm principle. Under the harm principle, the government should only legislate to prevent "other regarding" harms -- an action that harms someone outside of the actor. Regardless of the impact it has on the person, there's no reason to escape the harm principle and destroy rule utilitarianism, as well as the sole justification for the legitimacy of government. If the government legislates to prevent health harms to the person who chooses to use drugs, then the government isn't using utility to change policy, therefore lacks legitimacy. Further, the health issues argument is also turned by more drugs being used in the status quo than in the plan. So the lung cancer and rotten teeth arguments are irrelevant, and can be turned under Con's own paradigm. The harm principle is virtually conceded. Con tries to say that there is an other-regarding harm to drugs, which has been refuted. Then, Con says it's the addictiveness of drugs -- and not the person's choice -- that compels him to use them. First, this is false. The person *chooses* to foster that addiction by buying new drugs. The addiction merely pushes him to choosing. Second, this is irrelevant. It's still a self-regarding harm -- the person's harming himself, and he isn't harming anyone else. The person knows that he'll never stop when he first has drugs, and that's a choice that changes his life. The government shouldn't prevent the person from taking that first, dangerous step, because then it becomes a totalitarian authority that violates the harm principle. Under my plan, only people with a clear identification that proves that they're over 21 can have drugs. But in the status quo, there's no such need for identification -- the prohibition is ineffective, and drug cartels have their way, and they don't have regulations. This means street drugs are easily available to children, since there's no need for identification. Under my plan, drug cartels will be competed out of the market, and drugs will no longer be in the black market, thus reducing exposure of drugs to those under 21. Con drops every other argument of mine. Vote Pro because the status quo results in more consumption of drugs, which internal link turns every single argument of Con's. Also vote Pro because the harm principle is the only force that decides government legitimacy, so government action should only be based on other-regarding harms.