All drugs of all classifications should be legal.

To make this easier I refer back my opponents opening premises: "All drugs of all classifications should be legal." (Title) "Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal." (Opening statement) Of particular interest is All classifications should be legal, and, NO moral or logical reason to make them illegal. I will be referencing back to these core tenets throughout. There are non-self harming moral reasons the state should push anti-drug values on its citizens. This collapses the "NO moral reason" stance. The founders wanted government OUT: Why did the founders put government into voting, law into businesses, state interaction, and use government to protect the rights of citizens? United States has the Amendments, there is government, that government is allowed to fluctuate and change and breathe, but the founders put laws on how that happens. Simply said, if they wanted government out, US would be an Anarchy, not a Republic. The English were smothering, yes, and that is why the government now is fair in taxation and representation. I'm hoping that he understands that by saying "The founders wanted government to be left out of everything." that he knows what that entails. A small list of things government regulates: Agriculture, Defence, Justice, Labour, Education, Energy, Treasury, Security, and Health and Human Services. If the government cannot regulate these things, how would any of them run properly or safely? Everything needs a regulator for rights to be distributed properly, and fortunately, the founders wrote a checks and balances system so the government has government as well. My opponents' use of personal experience as a valid logical premise is problematic. All personal and subjective experiences are equally valid and as such non debateable. Removal of the subjective is what logical constructions of arguments entail. My opponent presents an argument directly contradicting his own, that of NO reason. Harm to others is now adequate reason for control. It violates both tenets. He repeatedly refers to certain drugs causing harm, harm is reason not to legalise. There is no reliable income reference for legalisation profit. Legalisation will create a tier of companies, from production to sale. Many more people require a slice of the profit, meaning costs need to go up; hence the undercutting of sanctioned drugs will occur. Price WILL rise due to taxation/inflation, public is more likely to buy cheap that way. It is embedded in society (deal drugs to get by) and a population who will be unable to meet legislated pricing. An underground market due to legislated costs returns us to the current situation, where people have no assurance of drug quality, his way people will weigh cost/benefit over assured quality/higher cost. For employers to legally control drug use of employers there needs to be a control limit valid at a state legal level. It violates both his NO reason premise, and his assertions that the government has no right to control what a person does. Mortality statistics are not only directly causational. Drug use, is risk behaviour for related areas of mortality. Cannabis use increases respiratory diseases associated with smoking, including chronic bronchitis, cannabis dependence syndrome, and cognitive impairment, more intense as level and time of use increases (Hall, Solowij, Lemon, 1994). A study of marijuana use and mortality was performed on 50 male Swedes, and followed for 15 years. The relative risk for mortality associated with marijuana use (more than 50 times) was after adjustment for social background (Andreasson, Allebeck, 1990). Marijuana use effects regional blood flow in frontal lobe, temporal lobe, and cerebellum, a measure of impaired brain function (Sneider, Pope, & Harrison, et al, 2006). All are valid reasons for a state to legislate control. Psilocybin may induce 'bad trips', a psychotic reaction accompanied by fear, panic, and dangerous behaviour, especially in combination with other drugs and alcohol. During a bad trip, individuals may hurt themselves (automutilation) (de Jonge, Portie, Franssen, et al, 2006). PCP may lead to loss of ego boundaries, depersonalisation, hallucinations, and euphoria. It can harm others because they have no sense of guilt, removes conscience. It comes down to the state applying a value of "acceptable risk" users, in regards to harm both to themself and others. My opponent fails to realise psychological addiction is not removed from the physical; tolerance, withdrawal, craving, cue activation, drug effect, conditioning, physiological changes, neuronal changes. This is why chocolate is far less dangerous than, alcohol, marijuana etc. My opponent advocates spending on drug education, a strategy the state employs as a duty of care to its citizens. Either the state has duty of care and all that entails, or it doesn't. You cannot argue for both. Also, just because the state uses a rehabilitation program that fails does not mean none available work. Knowledge and affective approaches combined with societal pressure has worked successfully since trials in the 60's. http://www.sciencedirect.com... The state can apply new rehabilitation programs, whilst retaining legal control. Correlations are not equal to causation; his arguments are littered with this fallacy (cf. FSM & pirates/global temperatures). Compared to western, Eastern Europe has higher rates of drug use, lower standards of living, there is not open legalisation. They discriminate between, hard and soft drugs, separation of the 'acceptable risk' drug user from the 'unacceptable risk' drug user. The past decade, field studies have shown an increase in the use of crack cocaine, and an increase in psychiatric and somatic comorbidity: Drug Situation, 2006 The Netherlands. Cannabis use among the general population reveals the same picture. The Netherlands does not differ greatly from other European countries: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands 1999. The National Youth Health Surveys among pupils showed an increase in cannabis use since 1988; other drugs showed a similar trend: Trimbos Institute: Report to the EMCDDA by the Reitox National Focal Point, 2003. Legalisation has not decreased use; use is comparable to countries with no legalisation, legalisation does not decrease use in ‘hard' drugs where ‘soft' drugs are legal. "Addictive personality" article states exactly what I did. They are behaviours, therefore modifiable. Personality is a stable set of characteristics, in the large part biologically based. Tomatoes: does not cause harm, does not cost the state in health care, does not breach copy right infringements and pay of Employees in Movie business. "My closing remark is that if you remove the illegal tag from an illegal drug, it is no longer immoral. " Since drugs are either morally obligatory or morally prohibited (and these are the only moral alternatives so one of them must be true) if it hurts any moral stance, it is morally prohibited. My opponent has argued open season on drug laws, no personal control from government bodies, and no possible moral and/or legal reason for illegalisation of drugs. He has failed in this regards, providing examples himself that violate this rhetoric. States have a duty of care, drugs can do harm, addiction unfortunately occurs, reliable profit is not established, removal of illegal trade is not established. My opponent provides the moral argument of harm to others. These violate the ‘ALL drug classes, NO legal/moral reason tenets'. Because I have given my opponent at least 1 moral reason (even if it is not a selfish one), and at least 1 through reason, I have defeated both of his main points, and thus, QED.