Legalization of Drugs in the United States

Once again, I am grateful to my opponent for taking this topic. He mentioned some excellent points, and I intend to retrace each of them in order to substantiate my position against the War on Drugs. First, I would like to clarify to my opponent that my stance on legalization is not that of a free market for all drugs. Selling crack at grocery stores would not help America. However, I do believe that if drugs were legalized that some lower-harm drugs, such as marijuana and possibly even MDMA, should be accessible to adults and purchased at specialty shops with a structure similar to that of alcohol. For more dangerous, highly addictive drugs, in-hospital regulation would be ideal. Addicts get their habitual drug of choice at a designated clinic, where they receive it free of charge, or for a small fee. As I mentioned before, the Swiss had excellent results with this method. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... Response 1 – Secondhand Smoke Increase? My opponent first mentioned the issue of secondhand smoke: "My biggest (though not only) gripe with drug use is with secondhand smoke." This is a very important issue, as nobody should be compelled to inhale smoke if they choose not to. California currently has laws against smoking inside of public buildings. I support such laws. In addition, indoor smoking will likely decrease if outdoor smoking is legal, because smokers won't fear being arrested. Con believes that sporadic secondhand inhalation of marijuana could lead to a failed drug test for non-smokers. This is not true. Passive, secondhand smoke of cannabis will not cause a failed drug test. Researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse published a study on marijuana use and the fallacy of hair tests, where 36% of subjects who smoked and ingested marijuana earlier that week passed the test, under the standard fair testing concentration of 0.10pg/mg. Secondhand inhalation, therefore, would not be substantial for a positive hair result. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov... Nor would it on standardized urine tests, according to Discovery Drug Testing: "…the urine concentration, if any, will be way below the cut-off level." http://www.drugtestpa.com... Since my opponent went on to describe secondhand smoke as being comparable to using a "roofie"(date-rape drug), I will remind him that this debate is not of the issue of secondhand smoke, which I am against in all cases. This debate is to determine whether or not people should be sent to prison for their drug use as an ideal method of harm reduction in the United States. Non-violent, taxpaying citizens should not be arrested, having their permanent records destroyed because of a personal habit. We have a choice to live in the same household as them, same as we have a choice to live with someone who smokes cigarettes. In either case, these people should not have their credibility permanently obliterated by a criminal record that will follow them forever. Response 2 – Drug Addiction My opponent stated his concern for the following: "Does Pro truly feel Ecstasy or Cocaine are safe to allow to be legally available to anyone 'over the counter' (that is, with no doctor's monitoring or prescription)? Both have a large pile of bodies from overdose abusers and those who attempted to drive or operate heavy machinery under their influence." Let us remember that 39% of U.S. traffic fatalities in 2005 were alcohol-related, a legal drug. Illegal drug associations were much less frequent. But keep in mind, my position is not to support drugged or drunk driving. Driving under the influence of anything is a crime, and should remain so. http://www.dot.gov... Although cocaine causes less death to users than alcohol, it is a terrible, physically addictive drug that ruins lives. I don't believe that any physically addictive drug should be readily available for the public. Drugs like these should be available in a clinical setting. These addicts are physically unable to quit, and most drugs with this type of addiction are known to promote violent behavior. Therefore, professional help in a safe, clinical environment is the only way. However, suggesting that Ecstasy (MDMA) would have a large pile of bodies if legalized is bad science. The exaggeration of the mortality rate of MDMA has frightened Americans for years. This fear is irrational, which is why regulated Ecstasy should be available for responsible adults. According to SAMHSA, approximately 60 deaths were attributed to MDMA (or "Ecstasy") use in 2000. Based on these figures, the approximate death toll for Ecstasy is 2 per 100,000 users. This is comparable to alcohol deaths with a rate of 50 per 100,000. Keep in mind that these 60 deaths (or 2 per 100,000) for MDMA were attributed to anyone who checked into a hospital reportedly having used "Ecstasy". Unfortunately, the majority of "Ecstasy" on the street today contains little or no MDMA. This suggests that a major portion of reported MDMA deaths were not only attributed to MDMA. The site below is dedicated to scientifically testing street Ecstasy samples. The results of non-purity in these tests are absolutely remarkable. http://www.ecstasydata.org... This dangerous lack of purity in Ecstasy is due to black market regulation. With government regulation, purity could be ensured and drug dealers would no longer be poisoning Ecstasy users. The only associated dangers with pure MDMA are that of hyperthermia (overheating) and hyponatremia (too much liquid). Hyperthermia, or heatstroke, can be caused by various factors including room temperature, physical activity, and water intake. Deaths of this type are typically associated in "rave" environments, in which users are dancing for several hours in a heated environment without drinking sufficient fluids. Hyponatremia, on the other hand, is caused by excessive fluid intake, and is not necessarily attributed to MDMA. In these cases, people have deliberately taken in gallons of fluid due to fear of overheating. Keep in mind, both of these causes are extremely rare and occur in only a fraction of a percent of MDMA users. http://www.erowid.org... My opponent mentions how certain legal drugs are addictive: "To suggest drugs aren't addicitve is ridiculous. Caffeine, Alcohol and Nicotene, three -legal- drugs, are proven to be highly addictive, as have (to my knowledge) all illicit drugs." Some drugs are highly addictive, and some slightly. But our laws are not based on addiction potential. The problem with prohibition is that our government decides, without reason, who goes to jail and who doesn't. It is fundamentally wrong to say "the people who use our favorite drugs can do it legally, but the people who use these other drugs go to jail". Caffeine, Alcohol, and Nicotine provide very little benefit to the user. They lead to addiction, and in many cases, death. So why then are the users of more beneficial, less addictive, and less deadly drugs being sent to jail? There is no just cause for this incarceration. Response 3 – Prohibition Con states: "I believe a lot of people who drank alcohol stopped using when it became illegal for fear of being treated as a criminal." There is not conclusive evidence to suggest that alcohol consumption decreased during prohibition. I assessed this in the previous round. Alcohol use, and other drug use, is determined by popularity—not by legality. http://berkeley.edu... In conclusion, we must end this War on Drugs. The only result is more casualties and more harm to the families of these victims. Thank you again for your time.