Drug Legalization

The Role of GovernmentIndeed I have presented my opinion on the role of government - just as I expect my opponent to argue his opinion on the role of government. Con wrote, "Laws are... about ensuring people are not subject to suffer from the actions or intents of others." I would agree. If someone under the influence of drugs harms another, they should be held accountable. It will be Con's burden to prove why people should be punished even if they do not harm anyone, and take precautionary measures to not harm anyone.33,000 people die in the U.S. each year and tens of thousands more are injured in car accidents, yet driving a car is still legal [1]. Driving while intoxicated is dangerous and illegal. If a citizen takes measures to avoid risks, such as finding a sober driver or chaperone, the laws of this country do not punish people preemptively on the basis that they could hurt someone. Negligence laws discourage risky behavior, but protecting society at large should not come at the expense of inhibiting individual rights. It makes sense to say someone should not do LSD and then operate a vehicle. It makes no sense to say someone cannot do LSD in their home.History and the War on Drugs Con doesn't deny the WOD has been a massive failure. He suggests this can be rectified through stronger enforcement, but does not elaborate. This oversimplified solution does not address the inherent problems with the status quo. As I explained, the demand for banned substances creates a black market for criminal enterprise. Criminalization does not decrease demand; it only creates barriers to satisfy the demand. Those barriers are expensive, ineffective and counterproductive.The WOD has cost over 1 trillion dollars, and Con doesn't explain how a country that is already trillions of dollars in debt can sustain this policy. He insists that being more strict will somehow stop people from doing drugs. People still do drugs in jail where they are supervised 24/7 and all substances that enter and leave the building are inspected and controlled. Clearly we cannot stop drug use if we can't even stop it in prison. Speaking of prison, Con ignored my arguments regarding the Prison Industrial Complex. Today nearly 500,000 Americans are incarcerated for drugs.The U.S. has the largest prison population on the planet primarily targeting drug users, not violent offenders. More than half of our massive prison population in the "land of the free" are being housed like caged animals for nonviolent drug charges [2]. The number of people sent to prison for drugs increased twelvefold in twelve years. While crime rates have fluctuated, the prison system quintupled [3]. How is this good for society? Private prisons are being used to generate money; not to protect American lives and rights [8]. The illegal drug trade and the associated violence, including turf wars and weapons trade, are largely the direct result of criminalization as I explained in the last round. If drugs were made legal, gangs and cartels would have to become legitimate distributors like everyone else in business subject to regulations. This encourages safety and ensures those engaging in trade are subject to the same standards (and taxes) as everybody else. Con dropped this argument. Last year, 40 billion dollars was spent in the WOD, yet the number of people in jail for drug offenses has multiplied by 10 in the last 30 years despite increased efforts to punish users [4]. This dismantles my opponent's case. Both drug use and the prison population is skyrocketing despite increased policing. Outside of drug use, crime is at historic lows. We should have a smaller prison population instead of housing 1/4 of the world's criminals. 90% of police departments have paramilitary units, most of which are used for no-knock entries into private homes for drug warrants. The overmilitarized police have created high tension among the community given their history of excessive force, unfair targeting and harsh penalties. Con dropped my arguments noting that drug laws focus on low-income people and neighborhoods, creates a permanent underclass of unnecessary criminals (creating innumerable problems including financial burdens and a criminal record), and perpetuates stereotypes about minorities. In Chicago, 80% of black men have been labeled felons for life. In many states, blacks make up almost 90% of the prison population (almost half in general) incarcerated for drugs, even though whites are just as likely to use drugs. Higher percentages of whites have used hallucinogens, marijuana, pain killers and stimulants like cocaine compared to blacks [5], yet minorities are far more targeted in the WOD. Drug laws also disregard our right to privacy and put lives in danger. A handful of children and pets were killed as police forcefully entered homes that were suspected to contain drugs [6]. How many children and pets were killed by actual drug users themselves? I won't get into the rampant Constitutional rights violations; my opponent ignored my legal arguments anyway. The point of this is to note the justification for current drug laws are poor, and the repercussions of criminalization causes harm. The emphasis seems to focus on punishing particular groups for false credibility rather than actually protecting and helping citizens. Drugs and ViolenceI haven't denied that drugs may influence violent behavior; I said alcohol is the only drug to consistently be associated with violence. Con acknowledges that illegal drugs account for only 1% of the deaths tobacco and alcohol do. Moreover 40% of all violent crime involves alcohol [7], and alcohol is still by far and large the deadliest drug in the U.S. known to cause aggression at higher rates than other drugs [8]. Ergo, Con would by his own logic necessarily have to argue that we revert back to the laws of Prohibition. The government already criminalized alcohol before realizing it was a completely massive and counterproductive failure. Prohibition was overturned for the same reasons the WOD should be overturned. Con defeats his own argument in noting the mafia have not "gone straight" after Prohibition was eradicated. Instead, they turned to other markets that provided a similar criminalized substance: the illegal drug trade.Health Risks and Public SafetySociety should remain vigilant against things like assault, robbery and rape because they are aggressive crimes that intentionally hurt other people. Violating a contract also harms others and should be punished. Drug use is victimless "crime" in which only the user is immediately affected in a meaningful way. Only when drug users agress against or immediately threaten others and their property does their behavior become relevant to society. In that case, I support laws punishing or preventing harm outside of complete exclusivity. One's personal choices are nobody's business, especially if limited to the home or another private establishment. Proposed Alternatives Education is a far more instrumental and moral process to curbing drug use than prohibition. Over the last few decades, informing people of the dangers of smoking has led to a significant decline in tobacco consumption despite the product still being legal. This approach allows people to make informed and free decisions about their own health. The goal is to get people to avoid drugs for legitimate reasons, not just make them hard to find - otherwise people will do drugs if and when they are available. This encourages organized crime to figure out ways to make them available, creating a plethora of problematic criminal activity in the process.Because drugs serve legitimate medicinal purposes, restrictive laws create barriers to health care and research. There are innumerable, undeniable benefits to marijuana consumption which is illegal. Likewise other drugs can be used responsibly as-needed without prescription. Helpful information ought to be available so people can make educated and safe choices. This protects freedom and fosters knowledge. Driving and other public activity while intoxicated is already illegal. A business or home owner has the right to remove someone for any reason including drug use if they feel uncomfortable. People can decide for themselves what they want around them. Protecting public space and activity from aggression is already accounted for. For harmful drug addiction, instead of punishing users we should supply resources to rehabilitate them. In addition to the obvious pragmatic (economic and safety) benefits coupled with respecting individual freedom, helping users fosters their health and well being - instead of causing them hardship and suffering as Con supports. Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...