The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

Topicality- This doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Please refer to the first paragraph of my previous post, and the comments section. "My opponent cites gang revenue in U.S. cities. However, they do not take into account foreign gangs, like those in China." Well, it's true that I didn't specifically mention Chinese gangs. However, I did take foreign gangs into account. ("Latin American drug cartels currently killing tens of thousands and destabilizing governments would lose their source of income and dissolve. The Taliban and other terrorist groups would lose their main source of income.") "Any attempt my opponent makes to say his plan solves for all gangs is fallacious, specifically in the sense that he's committing a "Proof by Example" fallacy. Also, who is to say that gangs will not find alternate sources of revenue? According to The Hindu, an Indian newspaper, a gang in India was transporting red sanders logs to fund themselves." I wasn't aware that I said that my plan solves all gang problems. I said that gangs in U.S. inner cities would lose their main source of revenue, which is true. If the gangs lose the drug market, gang activity and thus gang violence decreases. "Also, my opponent doesn't provide a clear way in which legalization leads to decreased revenue for gangs and the Taliban. The Taliban could still sell drugs for money." Sell them to whom? If drugs were legal, they would be sold by legitimate businesses, like tobacco and alcohol. Legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban. For one, businessmen don't want to associate themselves with the Taliban. Two, opium could also be grown by legal businesses, who would be able to produce it more efficiently and cheaply than a terrorist group. "Also, crime would increase. It is a widely accepted fact that drug use directly correlates with risky behavior such as crime." All that this correlation means is that people who are willing to disregard the laws against hurting people are also willing to disregard the laws against drug use. It doesn't mean that drug use causes crime. Need proof? Refer to the link in my previous post (#1) where a Department of Justice report states that alcohol is the only drug that has been shown to cause aggression. "Next; my opponent claims that those who were too scared of the law to do drugs will do drugs without engaging in criminal behavior. This is simply untrue. First, my opponent commits another "Proof by Example" fallacy by assuming that all (currently) law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. This is untrue. Thus, not everybody will refrain from criminal behavior." I did not say that everyone that tried drugs only once they became legal would refrain from crime. I simply argued that those who respect the law now are likely to tend to continue to do so if drugs are legalized. As for my alleged "Proof by example" fallacy: I never said that all currently law-abiding citizens are the same in their behavior. (Although, technically, they ARE the same in their behavior regarding the law: they all obey it) In the part of my argument you are talking about, I clearly used the qualifier "unlikely." "[dangers of combining marijuana and cocaine]" Did I say that drugs were completely safe, and that people should combine them? This is completely irrelevant; since my argument about the safety of drugs was that they are safer than most believe, not that there are no risks. "Also, a graph shown in the article titled "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal" by Glenn Greenwald shows that when Portugal decriminalized drug use, cannabis, multidrug, cocaine, and heroin use all significantly increased. If drug use spiked so sharply in this decriminalized country, imagine the increase in drug use and drug-associated harms in a world in which we legalize drugs." I'm glad you brought up Portugal; I had completely forgotten about that. That paper, here [2], clearly states that drug use DECREASED when Portugal decriminalized drugs. You misread it. [1] http://www.cato.org... "Next; it doesn't matter that alcohol causes aggression. As stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, alcohol has a 10% addiction rate. Cocaine has a 75% addiction rate. This means more deaths are caused by drugs, and more risky behaviors are caused by drugs, as stated by my Subpoint B under my first Contention." The point of my statement about alcohol causing aggression was that all the other drugs DON'T cause aggression. And even if your un-cited claims about the relative addiction rates of alcohol and cocaine were accurate, they are irrelevant, since you didn't provide any evidence that this addiction would lead to more crime. "Next; under my plan, there is no stealing of drugs, so I completely eliminate the harms that remain in your advocacy." What? "No stealing of drugs"? This sentence makes no sense. "TURN: In the Negative plan, the government is giving up a plan it has put an incredible amount of money into and lowers hegemony, making many question government legitimacy - thus drug use will go up because people sense weakness in their government." My opponent failed to provide any evidence that someone questioning the government's legitimacy would lead to increased drug use, or even any reasoning supporting it besides "people sense weakness in their government." "Although I am sorry for the man that was shot, I must point out my opponent commits an "Appeal to emotion" fallacy here. The man threatened the squad, and they, based on human instinct, shot. It's something called "fight or flight" syndrome. They chose, obviously, fight." The point of that example is that under the current system, the police can do whatever they want, with no real consequences. This is not an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to morality and one's sense of justice. A system where the police can steal and kill with impunity is an immoral and unjust system. "Next, drugs ARE life-destroying. Note that this next claim is not an appeal to emotion, just an argument. Almost a year ago, my friend was driving down the highway. He was sober in every way, and a cautious driver. Then, he was hit by a man who driving under the influence of cocaine. He was killed. That is life-destroying, and a true story." First of all, that is clearly an appeal to emotion, and not at all an argument. Furthermore, it sounds like another one of those "proof by example" fallacies. Not only that, but my opponent fails to cite any evidence that cocaine impairs driving ability. And, finally, I never advocated legalizing drugged or drunk driving. "Next, my opponent cites an article talking about how heroin is hard to get addicted to, and doesn't change performance. I will concede that heroin is difficult to get addicted to. That does not mean people don't get addicted often. I can personally tell you I know more than five heroin users. And before they did heroin, they got A's and B's in pretty much every class. Now, they do heroin. And they fail almost every class. I am aware there are outside factors, but I know these people very well, and I know that their environmental factors had no impact big enough to cause that severe drop in grades. Heroin will never affect everybody the same way, and you cannot expect it to. Thus, when using your example of the students and cops, you commit yet another "Proof by Example" fallacy." First of all, I used anecdotes in addition to general studies about the effects of heroin on one's life, not instead of. "That does not mean that people don't get addicted often." I didn't say that people don't get addicted often. I said that their addiction and problems associated are the result of things other than the heroin, which you did not attempt to refute. Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent tried to refute one of my alleged "proof by example fallacies" with a personal anecdote, again.