Drugs should be legalized in the United States

I'll give my own arguments, then go over my opponent's. 1. Legalizing drugs fosters more drug use. A. Deterrance Without the threat of prison from criminality, more and more people will be drawn into illegal drug's destructive spectrum. There have been several examples of drugs being legalized. In 1975, Alaska legalized Marijuana for consumption in the home. By 1979, 11 states had decriminalized it. The Netherlands sell marijuana legally in places called coffee shops. And Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts. (1) Small problem though. It was a colossal failure. In Alaska, teen use of marijuana skyrocketed, putting the state's usage rate at twice the national average. They were forced to re-criminalize it. The US states suffered a similar fate, with 51% of 12th graders admitting to using the substance. It was recriminalized here as well, after which usage rates dropped an astonishing 57%. Usage rates in the Netherlands also went up. With young men and women, the increase was 29%. Finally, in Britain, addiction rates to heorin went up 30% every year. (1) What these examples show us is that legalizing drugs signals a green light to addicts, allowing people to smoke their death powder without a fear in the world. B. Availability To get drugs now, you must know certain people, then go through underground crime syndicates to acquire one. Of course, you also have to rely on the dealer being trustworthy, in addition to not being caught by the po-po. This is is contrast to a legalized system. Inevitably, people would see drugs as a huge business opportunity, and we would see crack and cocaine being sold in pharmacies, private stores, etc. Under this system, all I would have to do to get some meth is to walk into the nearest Walgreens. This makes it inherently easier to get illegal drugs. Tobacco and cigarettes show us how often addictive substances will be used if made widely available. These are legal, and have much higher usage rates than illegal drugs. Of course, some people like to say that even if this is true, its not an issue because drug users only hurt themselves. Taking a "harm principle" approach, a person should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they dont hurt others. However, drug users DO hurt other people, whether it be directly or indirectly. Thus, my second point. 2. Impacts A. Drug users hurt Americans financially Drugs cause a variety of negative health effects, such as breathing difficulties, strokes, seizure, depression, heart issues, etc (3). Many addicts use the drug so much that they are ultimately taken to the ER due to these damages. In 2006, over 958,000 people were hospitalized for drug related emergencies. (4) However, many drug users are in poverty or are poor in general (5). Homeless people also have a usage rate above 50% (6). So when they destroy themselves with these drugs and are sent to the hospital, its very likely that they will either not have insurance, and/or will be unable to pay their hospital bills. So what happens then? Who pays for their treatment? We do. Hospitals "absorb" the cost of unpaid bills, and make up for this by charging everybody else more for their services. This cost is also passed onto insurances. One reason insurance is so expensive is because of these people getting sick and being unable to pay for their ER visit. (7) B. Drug users cause suffering for those close to them All you need to do to confirm this is to watch an episode of Intervention. Families are torn apart by drug use. Depression and loss of interest are a common effect of them. Because of the drug's addictive qualities, the user lives to seek another rush, rather than taking care of friends and family. Everyone close to them suffers due to this. The user is also less likely to go to work, meaning the family suffers emotionally and financially (8). C. Work productivity Many drug users are threats and liabilities in the workforce. 75% of drug users are employed (which also means 25% are unemployed, 16% above the national average). But because users suffer from lack of interest, their productivity suffers. For example, in 2000, approximately 110 billion dollars were lost from productivity of drug users (9). This doesn't just hurt them, it hurts the company and everyone else working there. Thats not all. They also pose a direct threat to fellow employees. Drug abusers are five times more likely to cause injuries to themselves or others, and account for 40% of all industrial fatalities (9). These are just three ways drug users hurt those other than themselves. There are surely others, such as driving while high, or child neglect. So lets dispel this myth that drug users only hurt themselves; its not just their lives they affect. Onto my opponent's arguments. The role of government Pro: Government can only intervene when one is infringing the rights of others You can extend my entire contention 2, which indicates that drug users do not just harm themselves. They do indeed cause harm to others around them. I fully agree that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves alone, but drug users do not fit this criteria. History/Impact of Anti Drug Efforts First, all her arguments about the War on Drugs can be discarded, because they do not support her position. The War on Drugs can be ended without legalizing drugs. For example, there currently is no "War on Murder" or "War on Theft", but they are still illegal. If the topic was "WoD is bad", she would be doing very well. However, it is not, so all these arguments fail the BoP to advocate legalizing. However, in case you dont buy that, I will go over these arguments anyway. Pro: Illegality creates mafia/black market However, in comments she says that she only advocates legalization for those over 18. This means the market will still exist for those under that age. Considering that over half of all drug users are under that age (10), the black market will remain strong. Pro: WoD has failed This is not the case. The War on Drugs began in 1971 (11). Drug use towards the end of the decade was at 25.4 million. My opponent's evidence says that there are currently 19.9 million drug users now. So in reality, drug use has actually decreased by 22%. Furthermore, 95% of all Americans dont use illegal drugs (12). Pro: The D.A.R.E. program has failed I do not advocate the D.A.R.E. program, it is not related to criminalization of drugs. Pro: Teens get caught using drugs and get a criminal record 1. Non-unique. Teens can get criminal records from thievery, rape, etc as well, doesn't mean we legalize the crime. 2. False. Teens caught using drugs can go to a juvenile drug court, where they do not get a criminal record (13). Use of these programs is also spreading, so its not an issue (14). Pro: Blacks more likely to be charged than whites for drug charges Blacks are discriminated against in general. For example, blacks get harsher punishments for killing white people (15), that doesn't mean we legalize murder. The racism isn't unique to drug charges. Pro: Children of imprisoned parents commit more crimes Again, non-unique. The same can be said of parents imprisoned for rape or murder. Pro: We can use drugs for medical purposes Perhaps, but looking at my source 3, I would argue that the detrimental health effects of cocaine, heroin, etc, outweigh any medical benefit. Health Risks Pro: Alcahol and tobacco kill more people than illegal drugs This is a con argument. The legal drugs kill more people than illegal ones. That indicates that keeping the drugs illegal is working to save lives. I'm low on space, so I'll go over the conclusion in my next speech, if pro permits it. So far, my opponent has mainly referred to the War on drugs, which as I've explained, isn't directly related to legalization, or used non-unique arguments. I've shown that legalization will cause direct negative impacts on society. Its for these reason I urge a con vote.