The United States Should End the War on Drugs

Thank you for that well thought out response. I would first like to address my opponent's point regarding the Constitution: "Of course considering the Constitution advocates the exact opposite, it will be very difficult for my opponent to make this point." I could easily argue the Interstate Commerce clause or the Necessary and Proper clause, but if Pro will not accept this then it should simply be accepted that I wish to amend the Constitution. It follows quite naturally that if I want the WOD to continue, and that this action is currently unconstitutional, then I would obviously implicitly be advocating the amending of the Constitution. Pro states that legal drugs are more dangerous, and that this does not explain why current legal drugs are not illegal. This is correct, and as I explained, most drugs currently legal should be banned, and in most cases take priority over drugs currently illegal. "However a few sentences later, Con writes, "[The WOD] is a perspective that allows one to hold simultaneously contradictory beliefs without question or doubt. The overwhelming majority of Americans KNOW that drugs like Heroin are far more harmful and dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes." Con seemingly admits that the WOD is contradictory, pointing out that heroin is less dangerous than alcohol, and then says heroin is MORE dangerous than alcohol. Well - which is it?" I admitted nothing. I simply state what the vast majority of Americans believe. Americans seem to believe in two contradictory statements. This proves that not only can prohibition work, but that the substance being prohibited does not even need to be very harmful for it to work. Pro seems to be missing my point regarding the demand for illegal drugs versus the demand for legal drugs. Drugs like opiates and cocaine are far safer than alcohol, and arguably more pleasurable. There is no logical (from a biological standpoint) reason to use Alcohol over either of those drugs. Thus people are obviously not using these drugs due to the effect that prohibition has had on our culture. In other words, prohibition works extraordinarily well; So well that a drug like morphine can be made less popular than a drug like smoked tobacco. Considering the subjective and physical effects of these two drugs, the disparity in use is almost unbelievable. Prohibition has been an unprecedented success in stopping select drugs from being widely used. "Perhaps most shocking of all was Con's statement, "drugs are perfectly harmless when 'prescribed' or 'prescribable' by a doctor." This was obviously taken out of context. I never made such a statement; I simply stated the understanding that a typical person has of the WOD. Most people seem to think that drugs like Heroin are bad, but being prescribed painkillers is fine. This, as Pro correctly points out, is a nonsensical opinion. People are far more willing to use a drug like Oxycontin than they are to Heroin, despite the fact that they have virtually the same physical effects. Again, this was intended to show that prohibition creates an unbreakable stigma on drugs that society considers "bad", even when almost identical drugs are recognized as harmless. It's the modern manifestation of the Orwellian "doublethink". "For instance, the obesity epidemic is rampant. Why not ban McDonalds? Surely if his response is "not everyone abuses it," the same exact thing can be said about drugs." Con is incorrect. Fast food should clearly be banned from human consumption. The level of human misery that it causes per capita is astonishing. Advertising fast food to children should be looked upon in the same light as a tobacco company advertising to little kids, regardless of whether or not believes that drugs should be criminalized. I see no evidence that I have annulled this argument other than what PRO has incorrectly implied. Pro argues that government has no right to intrude on personal autonomy. She is making an arbitrary distinction between government and autonomy. If free will does not exist, then one is just as much of a slave to their own nature as their is to their government. Humans are in a perpetual state of slavery to one thing or another. Pro challenges me to justify slavery. To put it simply, I cannot. If there was some form of freedom then it would likely trump slavery. But the commonly understood meaning of freedom is meaningless. No one can be free, so it is best to instead choose the least cruel master. Pro argues that there are some people who can use drugs without great harm coming to them. She uses this as an example of Government intervention being unfair. However, I don't see how this logically follows. There is no difference between government coercion and the coercion of one's own nature. By wanting yourself and others to be "free" from government intervention, you are directly advocating that others should then be enslaved by their own passions. There is no inherent difference, other than that more people are able to live happily when government prevents people from making horrible choices. Freedom is slavery. "Of course, Con completely neglects to report that these are primarily Muslim countries based largely around a religion that prohibits alcohol, making this a moot point." They prove the point that prohibition can be applied through extra legal measures. Religion is just one method to influence cultural opinions; there are a myriad of others. "In this sense, harmful = deadly. I pointed out that the number of deaths resulting from illegal drugs are only 1% of that which occur from legal drugs, meaning the idea of criminalizing drugs to prevent harm (death) is backwards and does not explain why certain things (like tobacco and alcohol) are legal despite their harms." Tobacco and alcohol should take the place of crack and Heroin in society, both legally and culturally. Contradiction terminated. Drugs that are currently illegal should remain illegal to cement government credibility and the perception of moral superiority of the average man over drug users. In summery, Prohibition clearly works, regardless of the nature of the substance in question. Any increase in crime is clearly negated by the unnaturally low number of drug users. By increasing the power of the federal government, organized crime can be wiped out by removing conflicts of interest and massive amounts of red tape present in the State governments. Through cultural propaganda and legal sanctions, we can criminalize currently legal drugs and eradicate the worst aspects of drug addiction. People will be freed from their self destructive nature and the overall public good will be increased.