1st DDO Census Debate: Drug Legalization

Premise I: Pro's Case.Pro holds BOP in this debate. It's not slightly shared, or completely shared. I don't need to prove a drug should be illegal, as it already is illegal. I need only prevent him from proving that drug should be legal. If he doesn't prove every single drug should be legal, he doesn't affirm the Resolution.Pro's case is riddled with a number of lies that should be held against him. The largest being the Harm Principle. Pro claims I dropped this argument, but I spent all of Argument I addressing it, and expanded on it with Argument III. A quote from Round 2, Argument I: "From Pro's own framework (how the rule of law is only to prevent our rights from being infringe upon) smoking does more to infringe..."Argument I: Secondhand Smoke.Pro has seemingly dropped all of my impact. Number of children to die early? Dropped. Number of lung cancer cases? Dropped. Pro continues to push his Gun/Car analogy, despite how I have refuted it. The analogy is soundly refuted because my refutation was dropped. Saying "(Con's) distinctions aren't compelling." isn't an argument, and therefore my case goes unaddressed.Pro does attempt to repeat his case, and nothing more. Let me, in turn, repeat my premise... If you and another person are driving down the road, there is a nearly nonexistent chance of colliding. Such a chance only exists if the driver, not his car, messes up. If a car is malfunctioning in a way that make's it possible to hit the other driver, that car would be illegal to drive. Therefore proving my case. When in a building with a lit joint (even if in a different room, as smoke travels), you have a nearly 100% chance of being effected.Pro has dropped the case about Consent. Pro's only real case seems to be restricting use. However, Legalization, as defined in this debate, is "To make legal for production, distribution, and use of a product." To restrict use enough to counter secondhand smoke, Pro must make it illegal to use within cities and towns. Only used in isolated locations away from civilization, and not while pregnant or with children. This is not legalization. And the legality of producing the drugs freely makes enforcing such rules impossible. Allowing use among less than a percent of the population at best is still Prohibition. Smoking marijuana is legal if you're an indian, this doen't make smoking marijuana legal, as an example.Argument II: Economic Impact.Pro's best argument is that my source is wrong, as it's based on presumptions. My source isn't based on presumption, it's based of the planned budget.Importantly, his source doesn't claim Colorado is only spending $33 million on Drug Legalization. It's REQUESTING $33 million in addition to it's budget. It's also requesting another $30 million from the TABOR tax, which Pro fails to mention. In total, they are requesting $63 million in new revenue, pushing total expenditures to almost $195 million. This is $70 million over the total revenue Pro listed.Pro attempts to claim that the $180-$300 million in loss economy and the $170 million in medical costs (equaling $155-193 bn in lost taxes and increased government costs) is only the result of prohibition, and not legalization. Neither are true. Those costs are the inherent cost of drug use in general. The economic loss, for example, is due to death, loss of production due to sickness, and such. These aren't prohibition issues, these are intrinsic drug issues.Pro never proves legalization will lower drug-related harms. He claimed they would, but never sourced it, or explained how. I, however, showed that drug-related issues and crimes (like DUIs) increased under legalization. Pro claimed crime fell, but I'll address that later. Cigarettes are legal, and the harms from them are ever growing.Argument III: Economic Freedom.Pro has entirely dropped this argument. It, alone, warrants a loss for Pro. Such an infringement on the right of every smoker, and every non-smoker who is effected by their product, violates his Harm Principle.Rebuttal I: Benefits of Drugs.Pro has dropped his own case. Labeled by Pro as "The Awesomeness of Drugs."Rebuttal II: Harms of Prohibition.A) Cost / BenefitsPro starts by claiming that the benefits of legalization outweigh the harms of prohibition, but I'd like to address that I made a case against each of Pro's 'harms,' and Pro dropped them. In R1, Pro made each claim with only one being sourced. He didn't prove any of them, or even explain them. I addressed almost each one. Pro's response was to lie to the voters, saying I dropped them. By not addressing my refutations, it was he who dropped the argument. I explained in R3 about how I did refute his claims. His comparison of costs to benefits doesn't stand, because he has failed to even address my refutations of those benefits.Pro, like all debaters, take on a number of responsibilities when accepting a debate. One of the most primal of these is that Shotgunning, known as Gish Galloping, is against the rules of a debate. Pro's attempt to flood R1 with as many arguments as possible in one section of the round (12 seperate claims, only making up a part of just one argument) should be taken note of. It is a debaters job to make sure they avoid this method of debating. Despite Pro's Gish Gallop, I did manage to address all but one claim by grouping the claims to their inherent cause. My ability to address each claim as I did does not nullify the poor conduct of Pro's shotgun argumentation.I also want to address that, if they were true, Pro's assertions fail to prove the costs of prohibition outweigh benefits because he fails to quantify them. Only his prison argument was quantifiable (as it was the basic for the cost of enforcement and prison), but my refutation stands of the Prison Case, as Pro dropped the whole prison case this round.A) CrimePro's ONLY refutation against my Cartel argument is: A) "Con says legalization won't stop the cartels. Maybe not. I don't know." and B) And to claim it'll limit their profits and stop them, stating I "offered no answer" to how they'd be stopped.To start, the first case is a sign of uncertainty, not an argument. The second case is another of Con's blatant lies. I did offer an answer... I explained (with sourcing) that drugs are NOT the Cartels main source of income, and that they actually profit off legalization by using it.Pro then attempts to prove his point by claiming my sources don't say what I claimed they do. Pro repeatedly relies on the assumption that because voters aren't likely to review the sources, he can lie about them. Source 10 starts by discussing Marijuana, then moves into the discussion of how legalization of any drug won't work because Drugs as a whole make up only half of the Cartel's business..."Some experts on organized crime... ...say that cartels earn just half their income from drugs."Source 8 claims the cartel's have capitalized on Marijuana Legalization, with Source 11 expanding on this by saying that Cartels will capitalize on any drug legalization, and continue to exist. Pro's ONLY counter to my claims is to ignore them; Saying "Con offers no answer" instead of actually acknowledging, and refuting, my answers. He has utterly dropped my claims, as lies do not count as refutations.Another claim by Pro is that the Cigarette Black Market is irrelevant, as it's caused by high taxes. It's not important what causes it, as it exists despite being fully legal. Colorado's taxes on Marijuana are almost as high of New York's cigarette tax (as NY's tax is almost 33% the cost of a cigarette pack, compared to an increasing 27% marijuana tax in Colorado (just 6% off.))I didn't argue that teen use increased. I argued that drug-related issues among teens increased. Pro tries to show that Legalization decreased usage, but his OWN source shows that teen usage has been decreasing for nearly a decade, and that marijuana is still prohibited for teenagers... Therefore, prohibition is the only variable listed that is constant among teens. The last of Pro's claim relies on a number of sources claiming that crime decreased. The irony is that Pro's Drug Policy and MSNBC source are ONLY for Denver. My source showed the whole state, granting a much better view of the truth. His last source is about the decrease in crimes of possession and selling marijuana.Summary: Pro has dropped a number of cases:- Argument III: Economic Freedoms.- Rebuttal I: Benefits of Drugs.- The Prison Case.- His argument against my CDC source.- My Economic Cost/Loses Stats.- My Secondhand Smoke Stats.Most of Pro's claims and arguments throughout the debate were made on uncertainty; "I don't know..." "Who the f*ck knows..." and the such. Few claims are sourced, and the ones that are sourced, are defeated by their own sources. Pro's conduct throughout the debate has been less than acceptable. It's to his benefit that conduct points may not be handed out. Many other cases by Pro is based on telling the voters I dropped arguments, despite my ability to show I didn't. All of these issues should be noted.By dropping my Argument III case, Pro has conceded that drug legalization will allow companies to infringe on the most basic rights of the consumer and anyone effected by usage. By dropping my Secondhand Smoke statistics, he has conceded to those stats.By dropping the Prison Case, he has conceded that the costs of enforcement would not decrease, therefore conceding half of his economic saving/revenues. By dropping my Economic Cost/Loses statistics, he has conceded to $300-450 billion in costs and lost economy, and potentally a trillion in lost investment growth, and potentally $80 billion in lost revenue, against only $40 billion in increased economy.Therefore, the impact of drugs are worse than the benefits of legalization (12x the benefit.) And legalization infringes on the right of all users and those impacted by secondhand effects.Thus efforts to end drug use are preferable to legalizing drug use.