Legalization of Illicit Drugs

Recap of how the arguments are functioning in this debate:Pro argues there should be no such thing as an illicit drug. Even if a drug is legal to use, possess, and trade within the national borders, it still counts as "illicit" in the US if the federal government does not reduce or eliminate any of its restrictions on production or importation.Therefore, Pro's position is that the US should freely allow production and importation of heroin. (Along with with every other drug.)To disprove Pro's position, I only need to persuade you that the production and importation of heroin causes more harm than good. I could also disprove Pro's position by arguing the same about a different drug.I lay this out very clearly in round 1 and Pro does not object.* Therefore, we can assume Pro agrees.Regarding heroin:Public educationThe closest Pro comes to contradicting my round 1 arguments is to say most informed people would prefer softer drugs over heroin, and therefore, we can decrease the amount of addicts by educating the public.However, this does not contradict my argument. Why not do both? Limit the root cause of the problem and reduce the damage after the fact. All else being equal, if there is more heroin in the country, then more people will use it.less heroin + public education (is better than) more heroin + public education.less heroin + no public education (is better than) more heroin + no public education.The above statements would only be false if there were zero heroin users in the country. Pro must persuade you that we can immediately, right now, educate the entire country and persuade everyone not to use heroin. (Since Pro gives no timeframe, we assume the proposition is to legalize drugs immediately.) As of now at least, there is no support for that possibility. Now or in the remote future. And there is a simple argument against it: heroin has the highest abuse potential among the well-known street drugs (refer to my sources in round 1). Clearly, between the intensity of the euphoria and the addictiveness, heroin has some kind of advantage over other drugs for the serious user.But even if Pro does persuade you that it is possible to eradicate heroin use, then that still does not contradict my ethical argument. Importing and producing heroin has no advantages whatsoever. The only effect it can have is that someone, somewhere, is tempted to use it. The government has the moral obligation to prevent this problem before it even happens.Also, let me remind you that Pro's position is not "educate the public on drugs"; it is "allow heroin to be produced and imported freely into the US." Furthermore, as I argue in round 1 / "Solution" / point 1, if you care enough about the heroin problem to spend resources to reduce the damage, then you should care enough to limit the root cause. Therefore, we can conclude from Pro's own support of damage reduction strategies that heroin should not be legalized.For public education, replace "use softer drugs instead of heroin" with "do not re-use needles" in the above argument, and it still works the same way.Cycle of povertyPro argues we should "address the root problems such as social inequalities." This supports my point. As I argue under "Economic" in round 1, heroin is part of a cycle. People become poor and isolated, they try drugs as a means of escape, they contribute less to the economy, they become poorer, and the next generation is born into even more hopeless circumstances. Heroin is one of the root causes of social inequalities. We should eliminate it.Legality of personal usePro: "If I would like to consume a harmful molecule, I do not think I should be prosecuted for that."And I am not saying you should be prosecuted. I am saying it should be harder for you to acquire the harmful molecule in the first place. (Remember: by arguing that heroin should be completely legalized, Pro is arguing that it should be easier to acquire.)* The closest Pro comes to objecting to the focus on heroin is:"The War on Drugs is mostly a blanket term for a war on cannabis."But the resolution is not to end the War on Drugs. It is to legalize illicit drugs completely. Heroin was illicit long before Nixon started the war between the police and the people.