Recreational Drugs should be Legalized in the United States of America

A.)MY CONTENTIONS Contention 1: "I agree with my opponent that the vast majority of drugs are harmful and even deadly HOWEVER we can not have our government criminalize acts solely because they are harmful to the user. >>>"The government must protect everyone[s] liberty even if some choose to use their liberty to destroy their body." -We are aware that most drugs are extremely addictive. Even today, without drug legalization, many times young people do drugs just for fun and believe that it is just a one time thing and all of a sudden they realise that they are hooked on them and can't stop! Thus their lives are destroyed. This what my opponent is debating for. Many people will die or "destroy their body" without wanting this to happen to them. "By using my opponents logic the government should also criminalize over eating, lack of exercise, alcohol, excessive caffeine use, and tobacco products to name a few acts that are harmful to the user." -The examples my opponent brings up are not nearly as harmful or addictive hard drugs and young people are less likely to get hooked on them just because they tried to fit in by trying them. These habits are in fact based on personal decision, while being hooked on drugs many times isn't. Contention 2: Criminal Activity will be Increased "There is no evidence to support criminal activity will increase, this is speculation" - False it is not speculation, it is common logic. If we have increased criminal activity and accidents, due to alcohol, we most certainly have the same problem in a more massive scale due to drugs, because many drugs influence the brain more than alcohol. "We can not criminalize acts because they might cause other criminal acts to occur" - Universalize my opponent's claim, than we shouldn't ban stabbing people just because it might lead to murder or attempt of it. "Using this logic the government would have to make not working illegal because it might motivate the individual refusing to work to steal. Higher criminal activity has been associated with lower education. Shall we require all individuals to go to school and work in an effort to reduce crime?" - These examples are in fact a lot closer to speculation than fact. Certainly, I agree that these people are more likely to commit crimes, but we can't make not working illegal because usually it is not a choice not to work and even if the government passed such a law, it would be very difficult to get everyone to work. Not going to school is already illegal (!!!) and an increased criminal activity of the non-educated was one of the many reasons that the law was passed. Also, these people (non-educated and unemployed) are a lot less likely to violate the law than a wild teenager driving under the influence of drugs. "There is significant evidence that crime would decrease. The cost of drugs would be extremely cheap. The main motivation in criminal activity caused by drugs is due to the high cost to support the addiction." -Yes criminal activity RELATED TO DRUGS would decrease, because the act of selling drugs would no longer be illegal, but other illegal acts that would increase!!! By universalising my opponent's claim, we should legalise robbery because crime would decrease, due to that thievery would no longer be considered a crime. "If recreational drugs were legal there would still be regulation similar to [the] alcohol regulation. If users drive they will be prosecuted. If individuals go to work under the influence they will likely get fired. - True, these regulations would and already do exist (with alcohol), but even with alcohol I do not see them working despite the millions beings spent on educating and warning drivers, thousands of people die every month due to driving under the influence of alcohol, I don't imagine that changing in the case of drugs. "Further most drugs do not affect your motor skills, inhibitions, or judgement nearly as much as alcohol, which is legal." - False. Most drugs DO affect your driving skills (although a few don't, but those are not the ones in question here), we should protect the lives, of the innocent victims of potential car accidents no matter how many or few they are. Contention 3: Kids and Teens Will Have Easier Access to Drugs "We should have regulations to prevent under age use…required to complete drug and alcohol treatment programs." - We've seen these regulations before, except with cigarettes and alcohol. The statistics show that 1/3 of children today, try their first cigarette or consume normal quantities of alcohol when under the age of 14! So due to the above, I am definite that these regulations don't work. So let's at least keep it at cigarettes rather than hard drugs! The problems with teens smoking is already been proved to be more than we can handle. "Using this logic we should outlaw alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and most television programs. No doubt all of these may be harmful to children and should all be properly regulated but not criminalized for adult use." -I agree. If parents can't control their children we should ban these in order to protect society and the growing and sensitive bodies of kids, but we can't. This is because people would react. At least these aren't nearly as harmful as hard drugs and teens are somewhat safe from more serious health problems caused from hard drugs. If drugs were allowed, we wouldn't be able to ban them. So legalizing drugs is irreversible, we cannot recall our decision, because just like alcohol, people would react, so risking the lives of children is a dangerous risk because if we fail to control ourselves and our children we cannot recall our decision if we find that we have made a mistake. Contention 4: Morality My opponent states that: "I believe the laws of this secular government should only criminalize acts that DIRECTLY violate another individual's liberty." - Taking drugs violates another individual's liberty because the user may in certain situations (as I explained in Round 1) commit a crime or acts of violence while under the influence of drugs. So drug legalization is in fact: Criminalizing an act that violates another individual's liberty. My opponent also strays from the topic by going on and on about his beliefs. Well, I disagree with him because I have different beliefs and values, but I kindly remind him (although I began the discussion about morals) that the topic is drug legalization, not our conservative or libertarian beliefs and morals. Contention 5: "Second hand smoke has mostly been eradicated. … There would still be regulation of recreational drug use." - True, laws have been set in the case of cigarettes, but many people still violate them, as they probably would with crack or hash! So kids and pregnant women, would, at some point almost inevitably annihilate the smoke with disastrous results for their health. For example you might be sitting with your kids and pregnant wife at the bus stop while a man smoking crack sits by you, you would be forced to annihilate his smoke and so would your family even if it is just a few breaths it would definitely be very bad for the embryo. Or you may be at a restaurant with your family and in the same place someone is (legally or illegally) enjoying a good smoke of marijuana at another table without you noticing. B.)HIS CONTENTION: Contention 1: Laws must protect others Liberty My opponent made a very similar point in his rebuttal of my 1st contention (the one marked with the >>>) So my answer is the same. Also, I explained, in my 2nd contention that, many times people, are robbed of their right to life due to that people under the influence of drugs, are more likely to commit crimes due to the effect that certain drugs have on the brain. So is this what my opponent is proposing as real liberty, when killing of innocents is very likely to increase?