All 'drugs' should be made legal and be controlled by the state.

Con has said "it does not matter how the drug war started" and "many good causes are started by unfavourable means" in an attempt to downplay the facts that I presented as a historical basis for my argument; that the fundaments of International drug law are flawed. Unfortunately, my opponent has simply demonstrated how morally corrupt the process of lawmaking has become, and that this contradicts the ethics of contemporary law based on truths.As a basis for this assertion, Governments are actually known to dismiss new data when it contradicts political ideals - even when it has been derived from scientific means. Professor David Nutt (DM, FRCP, FRCPsych, FSB, FMedSci) was drugs adviser to the British government and later fired after presenting scientific research that showed alcohol is more harmful than LSD or MDMA (ecstasy) in terms of mortality rate, crimes related to consumption, and injury (http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk...) (http://www.guardian.co.uk...). As a scientist who truly understands the physiological effects of narcotics through ongoing research, he is, by definition, an expert on the subject. He was fired after he presented this scientific data, purely because it went against government policy. Politicians, although not qualified to make any assertions about health or psychological impact are doing so anyway (http://www.guardian.co.uk...).Scientific research and discovery can indeed overturn or change law, however as we have seen, even pure science can be blindsided by politicians when it would seem to contradict their agenda. Richard Nixon commissioned a study in 1972 and the Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse found that "the constitutionality of cannabis prohibition was suspect" but the Nixon administration did not implement the studies recommendations (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The majority of Republican representatives in US government are perpetuating that same approach in regards to stunting reformation, as Conservative ideals are certainly not bound by logic, science or scientific research - they are instead based on a highly dubious 'moral' code (http://www.press.uchicago.edu...). This is further elaborated on later in my criticism of The Heritage Foundation and their propaganda later on in this round of my case. DRUG STATISTICS AND THEIR UNRELIABILITY It is important to repeat that there is a 'Dark Figure of Crime' (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - which not only applies to the unknown scale of victimless crime (http://en.wikipedia.org...) like narcotic use but even real crime like physical assaults and rape - and due to this fact government agencies use statistics as a way of reporting on the effectiveness of law enforcement without having to use watertight data. In real terms, my opponent cannot refute the fact that by a legalising drugs a more comprehensive dataset will be achieved through the additional figures provided by legitimate manufacture, wholesale and retail through legitimate channels of commerce. Unfortunately DEA seizures are no indication of the scale of drug related 'crime' by way of trafficking. In fact, this agency and others including the CIA and State Department have faced accusations of colluding with cartels in order to traffic narcotics into the United States, with CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz publishing a two volume report in response to these allegations that did not deny these allegations (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It would be foolhardy to assume there is no corruption. With this in mind, along with the pure speculation of my opponent about numbers regarding use and trade, how can any individual claim to have the 'facts' or statistics that would make his case ironclad? The fact that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the law means that it should be reviewed. Regardless of whether a tax on currently illegal narcotics would be profitable, the taxes garnered from sale would provide government revenue that does not currently exist. At present drug pricing structure is obviously not bound by the usual rules of trade and commerce transparency and yet still constituted $321.6 billion dollars in 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The cultivation of plants and chemicals and the sale of the resulting product would be no different from any other foods or consumables currently available on the market. His assertion that legalisation/decriminalisation leads to price increases is also a fabrication. In countries and states where laws have been relaxed in regards to cannabis, prices are considerably lower (http://www.priceofweed.com...) and in regards to cocaine, "the standard economic model predicts that the quantity of drugs consumed would rise and the prices would fall" (http://ideas.repec.org...) (The "quantity" correlates to the conversion of consumers from black market to legitimate products).My opponent said:"They have been using the lower supply and the increased control to use price [sic] and make drugs to [sic] expensive for most americans, which is a sucess [sic]"In this rather confusing sentence, my opponent has attempted to add credence to his ideas regarding drug pricing. I will end this part of my case by pointing out that in 2005 the Government Accountability Office described the data used to evaluate progress in the drug war as "problematic" and said there was an absolute "absence of adequate, reliable data on illicit drug prices and use." (http://www.cfr.org...) (http://www.gao.gov...).DEBATING C2My opponent is somewhat naive in his black-and-white assumption that I should prove that legalisation would "end [black]markets[sic]". There would be no definitive end to black markets, however the requirement for them to meet demands would be reduced and be replaced by legitimate vendors. Importantly, "violence results from policies that create black markets". (http://articles.cnn.com...) The case for legalisation is given further weight knowing that those in control of the black markets will no longer have complete control as they do now. The most shocking part of my contenders argument is his attempt to use reference no.8 (http://www.heritage.org...) - The Heritage Foundation - a politically motivated and biased organisation website that does not serve as impartial information for his case. It attempts to discredit all verified and credible scientific research by implying that cannabis is "unsafe in any amount". For this reason you must disregard that part of his argument completely due to it being based on a complete fabrication. The fact the article implies that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol is not only inaccurate, but it is also completely unfounded. As with all consumables, including foods and drinks, there are damaging factors. Over consumption of water have caused recorded deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org...). However, there was not a single death as a result of consumption of cannabis in 2011 (http://www.economicsjunkie.com...). In fact historically there are no recorded deaths induced by cannabis, and not only that but it's almost physically impossible to overdose on it (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...). As a contrast, 4% of all deaths globally are due to alcohol, more than AIDS, TB or violence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...). I look forward to the next round.