The state should not pass legislation regarding drugs.

I accept the Con position, and I assert that the state should either pass or keep existing legislation regarding drugs. My position is that all addictive substances should be regulated/taxed/criminalized variously according to their level of danger to the general welfare of the public. Specifically, marijuana, shrooms and LSD should be fully decriminalized though slightly regulated and taxed, tobacco should be heavily regulated and taxed, and the "hard drugs" should be criminalized with mandatory rehabilitations (not prison sentences).Pro's claim that "The resolution doesn't imply a moral obligation on the part of the state" is seemingly absurd, because all statements of "should" are statements of moral obligation. Morals are systems of expected behaviors that depend entirely on accepted values. The example given, that "You should go to the doctor," is therefore just as much a statement of moral obligation as "you shouldn't kill." The former statement is another way of saying, "Your health and life is more valuable to me than your money and time, and therefore my moral priorities compel me to encourage you to go to the doctor rather than to stay home." The latter statement is another way of saying, "The lives of innocent people are more valuable to me than your freedom to end their lives, and therefore my moral priorities compel me to discourage you from murdering."The debate about drug policy likewise has morality at its core on all sides of the debate. It is a rivalry of values between freedom of all people to use all forms of recreational drugs on the one hand (Pro) and the health, safety, and freedom from addiction on the other hand (Con). As a libertarian-leaning individual, I have sympathy for the Pro side. However, freedom is not my only value. When George W. Bush infamously stated, "There ought to be limits to freedom," it was an uncomfortable truth. We do not and should not have unlimited freedom, or else it would follow that there would be freedom to murder, assault, rape, steal, and violate software terms and conditions. We set limits to freedom, the same as all other values, according to a perceived maximization of our combined set of values.The so-called "War on Drugs" is almost universally acknowledged as a failure, due in large part to a persistent red herring: the unnecessary criminalization of marijuana. The argument against that subset of the policy is easily won. But, we should not be deluded into believing by the projection of such argumentation that the legalization of all manner of recreational drugs will likewise benefit society. Cody_Franklin advocates the full legalization of even the most dangerous drugs, so I will focus on perhaps-the-most problematic drug threatening the United States: methamphetamine (or meth).According to a study in the Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, "The need for speed: an update on methamphetamine addiction," September 2006, meth, described in the introduction as "highly addictive," has the following effects: Withdrawal effects reinforcing addiction - "Terminating the administration of high doses of these drugs in humans and animals induces physiological and psychological effects that are opposite to the acute effects of the drug (Fig. 3); these include fatigue, anxiety, irritability, depression, inability to concentrate and even suicidality." Deterioration of quality of life - "Most of them [youth abusers in Vancouver] perceived an important deterioration in their quality of life due to MA abuse." Neurological damage - "The more prominent of these include a loss of grey matter in the cingulate, limbic and paralimbic cortices of MA abusers, as well as significantly smaller hippocampi and white-matter hypertrophy. Longer-term MA users also displayed an enlarged striatum and subtle alterations in cerebral vasculature. A recent study has identified shape changes of the corpus callosum in abstinent MA users, including increased curvature in the genu and decreased width in posterior midbody and isthmus areas, which connect frontal and parietal cortices." Bodily damage - "In addition to the mental health problems involved with the longer-term consumption of MA [methamphetamine], use of the drug is associated with numerous additional physical problems, including dental caries, infection, heart failure and malnutrition." Many substances are harmful to the body, but the danger abusers and to society is strongly magnified by the level of addiction. According to AddictionRecoveryBasics.com (http://addictionrecoverybasics.com...):The epidemic that is crystal meth has reached crisis proportions in North America, and around the world. Meth is generally easy and cheap to produce in simple "labs", often set up in dealer's homes. The drug creates an instant euphoria in the user, but is extremely addictive. The long term effects include brain damage, memory impairment, and extreme mood swings. The withdrawal symptoms have been described as "physical agony", hence the very high dropout rate of addicts from recovery programs. Addiction counselors say the relapse rate (of 92 per cent) is worse than cocaine.According to that source, meth is almost as addictive as nicotine--crystal meth scores 94.09/100 and nicotine scores 100/100.The addictive power of such substances is the essential point of the argument against full freedom, because the ability to make the reasonable decision of discontinuing the procurement and ingestion of the substance is all but completely crippled for everyone who is already addicted, and the essential element of freedom--availability of options--is likewise minimized. Everyone knows many people who have earnestly tried and failed to quit smoking.If meth use negatively affected only the users, then I assert that these arguments would be sufficient. However, the negative effects extend strongly into the larger community, among many of those people who never complied with meth use in the least. According to the abstract of "Methamphetamine Use, Self-Reported Violent Crime, and Recidivism Among Offenders in California Who Abuse Substances," of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, April 2006,Methamphetamine use was significantly predictive of self-reported violent criminal behavior and general recidivism (i.e., a return to custody for any reason).I finish my round of arguments on that point, and I await my opponent's case. To be swash, I strongly expect that he has an uphill battle ahead of him.