Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

I must admit, the argument from my opponent was far more formidable than I was expecting. CON I: "Prohibition effect" Let's talk for a bit about the prohibition effect. This is the effect where illegalizing something increases its usage, and makes it more dangerous. Let's think for a moment about WHY prohibition did what it did to the alcohol moment. Before 1920, Alcohol was legal. And then, suddenly, the government decided to take that away from the people. THIS is what caused the prohibition effect. That is to say, while the initial generation might rebel against the new law, each suceeding generation will conform more and more, and eventually, the overall effect will be a good one. People don't react well when the government suddenly tells them "You can't do this," but they accept it a lot more easily if they've been raised by the media and their parents to accept that they cannot do whatever it is (especially if there are harsh consequences to doing the thing). Thus, while the illegalization of prostitution/gambling/drugs may be a bad thing in the short run, in the long run, it actually ends up having a positive effect. Since there are likely no figures to support me, I've just used reasoning to do it for me. CON II: "Prostitution / Casinos lessen productivity" There are a great many things that actually make America more prosperous. Most jobs help accomplish this, while some service industries simply don't help our standing within the global economy. Gambling and prostitution are among these service industries. Most jobs help create or maintain something we can trade with other nations. Most service industries increase the standard of living of Americans by giving them a new service. HOWEVER this is hardly the case for Prostitution and Gambling. Prostitution doesn't benefit anyone who's in a committed relationship, and it actually lessens the incentive for people to seek out a committed relationship. Since committed relationships are a huge investment in the future [brings healthy, well-adjusted kids and stable, happy, working parents, etc.]. Basically, it helps productivity in the long run for Prostitution to not be as common or easily available. And gambling certainly doesn't help society. For some, it throws them into a cycle of poverty, and for some few others, it allows them to reap a large amount of wealth without contributing anything to society. This overall lowers productivity. People in the first group are left more often begging, gambling their money away, etc. rather than finding a stable job they can be productive in. Their mind is on gambling, not on what they should be doing. And for those others, they no longer have the incentive to find a productive job, since they already have a fat stack of cash. Thus productivity suffers. And with it, society too. Other service industries tend to not make people less productive. For instance, a barber. He cuts your hair, you give him some money. That's it. There's nothing inherent in what a barber or a McDonal's floor mopper does that makes people less productive. CON III: Response to "Our police could be stopping thefts and murders, crimes with victims, instead of entrapping workers who are making people happy and not hurting anyone at all." A> They DO stop thefts and murders. B> I have shown that prostitutes are hurting society, by removing an incentive to find a committed partner by being completely useless for anyone who's in a committed relationship. Since our society thrives with committed relationships, this is decidedly bad for society in the long run. CON IV: "Drugs" My opponenet claims that the prisons are filled with drug dealers, but also claims that law enforcement is ineffective against drugs, and it would be no easier to get them if they were legal. As my opponent has shown, a VAST number of people get arrested every year for drug possession or drug dealing. Let's think about what that means with some reasoning. A> The use of drugs is detrimental to society. B> Many people who use drugs are penalized for it. C> People who are penalized, by having to pay fees and/or getting misdemeanors, will be less successful in life, and less likely to have children. D> From B and C, people who don't do drugs will have more children on average than people who do do drugs. E> This leads to drug-using being slowly eliminated from society. Not only that, but we can cross-apply CON I here. Thus, there will be a long-run trend away from drug use if it remains illegal, for both these reasons. Also, consider that all these fees and such that are paid for drug possession go to the government. Thus, they usually end up at least paying for their own burden on the system. And if it's not quite enough to pay for it, the fees could be increased. That would be a better plan. Also, consider that drug dealers/users are often killed in the status quo over drugs, which leads to an even less drug-prevalent future. Also, Amsterdam is a very different place than the USA. Simply showing that Amsterdam has lower drug usage than the US does not show that the drug policies are the cause. Association does not imply causation. What would be much better in showing causation would be a study comparing Amsterdam's drug usage pre-legalization and post-legalization. CON V: Conclusion Response I have shown that prohibition does indeed work, just not in the short run. [CON I] I have shown that prohibitions are not always costly, since they generate income [CON IV] While prohibition might usually cause crime, it only does so in the short run, which is insignificiant in the big picture. It matters not what America is rooted on. That is an appeal to false authority. Just because the constitution says X, or the founding fathers would say X, does not mean X is right. I have argued why prohibiting certain 'victimless crimes' is a good practice.