To be decided.

"However, you have not shown that the war on drugs improves society in any of these areas -- the truth is, it does the opposite. I agreed that illegal drug use is usually unhealthy, but the war on drugs has not been shown to decrease drug use at all." That's why the government needs to step it up. Benefits don't come from fighting a war, they come from winning it. And you have to fight a war to win it. On the contrary, there are disadvantages to losing a war. Giving up/discontinuing is losing. The disadvantages, obviously, include the ones I provided. "Illegal drugs are currently available nearly everywhere in our society, including schools, and even prisons!!" If the government stopped now, the availability of drugs wouldn't change. People would still deal drugs in those places. "Also, consider the huge amount of crime that is committed in order to obtain drugs at artificially inflated prices due to the "war on drugs".And, by ending the war on drugs, law enforcement would be enabled to focus time and money on reducing violent crime, rather than being distracted by going after non-violent drug users." The government isn't distracted by this, they are only keeping an extra eye out for it as well as other crimes. If a cop witnessed a murder, and then noticed an innocent bystander doing heroin, he'd still go after the murderer. "In addition, it causes the descruction of the family unit, especially in urban centers, which is one of the greatest tragedies" If the U.S. stopped this war on drugs, it wouldn't prevent people from using/continuing to use drugs. What destroys the family unit is the use of drugs. The last thing discontinuing the war on drugs would do is prevent drug use. "More Americans are incarcerated than ever before, and most of the increase is due to the failed "war on drugs". These are in many cases fathers and mothers who have been ripped away from their families and communities, when they could have instead been treated for their addiction." See my last response. Also, you would still be separated from your family if you underwent treatment. You just wouldn't be in a jail, but rather in rehab. "In fact, enforcement of the "war on drugs" has been highly descriminatory. According to the Human Rights Watch Report: Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, May 2000 Vol. 12, No. 2 (G), Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison. The message is, if you're white or wealthy, you get treatment, if you're black or poor, you get jail." Whether you get treatment, prison or both depends on the situation and the judge. Enforcement of these policies has nothing to do with war itself, as the war only makes it illegal. The court determines your punishment. "Exchange programs that would reduce the repeated use of needles, and therefore the transmission of aids and other blood borne diseases are outlawed, lest they be percieved as encouraging drug use." I don't see how switching needles encourages drug use. Does that have anything to do with the resolution? "Letitimate uses of drugs for terminal cancer patients are in most cases illegal, despite the continued legality of much harsher drugs, like morphine." Morphine is a painkiller. Other drugs, such as the ones I showed in my first argument, are too dangerous to be used as painkillers. "Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail." Like you mentioned before, there is treatment. "This is perhaps the most absurd of your claims. Currently we funnel billions of dollars to drug lords and gangs, throw huge percentages of working members of poor neighborhoods in jail for nonviolent crimes, and spend tens (some estimate hundreds) of billions of dollars per year on the "war on drugs"." And cutting all anti-drug funding would solve any of this? Also, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime. "The federal budget reported at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov...... shows over 10 billion dollars per year spent, and that does not incude the continued cost of incarceration (more than 1 in 100 americans are now in jail, and more than one in five of those is in for drug related offenses)." We don't have to cut spending in that area. See my second response after this. Also, these people are incarcerated for their unwise choices of illegal drug use. "I hold, as many do, that the govenment should not use force to impose morality against a person that is not committing any harm against another. It is especially hypocritical when the abuse of alcohol and nicotene are perfectly legal, and are treated medically." Nicotine is forbidden for minors and in most public areas. And, once again, a crime, violent or non-violent, is still a crime. "Other contributors to budget shortfalls are irrelevant, my point is to show one more benefit of ending damaging drug policies." It's relevant in the fact that I can just as easily argue, "Cutting military funding will solve this budget problem". Keep in mind, I am not advocating this as an alternative. I am only saying that you can't blame one specific topic of overspending for underfunding of another topic. "This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any." I stated that to show that you were contradicting yourself; you worry about the spending, yet advocate mass rehab. "...the best thing to do would be to take the supply of those drugs out of the hands of criminal elements." Good idea. However, you just helped me, as this would be considered part of a "war on drugs". "The fact that other actions, like welfare reform, may also help solve employment and poverty problems, does not change the fact that eliminating the war on drugs would almost certainly do so -- your statement is totally irrelevant." What I'm saying is, the war on drugs is hardly connected to poverty. The USE of drugs may be, but not anti-drug movements. Which makes YOUR statement irrelevant. Now I will address some major points. My opponent's reasons for ending the war on drugs are as follows: a) It takes up too much of our budget b) It isn't affecting drug use in a positive way c) It would bring more attention to other, more violent crimes d) It puts many people in jail and destroys families Here are my responses: a) It takes up $14.1 billion in 2008 as suggested by your source. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org... which is backed up by gpoaccess.gov, in 2008 the total spending will be $2.9 trillion. That means the war on drugs only takes up 0.04862% of the budget. That's much less than 1%. That's not a problem, is it? b) What makes you think stopping drug resistance will cause drug use to go down? If the war on drugs isn't helping, then stopping it certainly won't do any better - use common sense. Besides, that only tells us that we need to increase funding. c) The worse crimes already get the police's attention. A policeman is obligated to attend to the more dangerous crime happening at the moment. Like I said before, if a cop witnesses a murder and a kid doing heroin, he will go after the murderer. d) The war on drugs does not destroy families and incarcerate people - drugs themselves do. So we need to resist something that incarcerates people and destroys families, not stop resisting it. So, vote con (well technically, vote PRO): 1) My opponent's claims are untrue and blame the war on drugs for the problems that the drugs themselves cause. 2) My point still stands that it is in the government's interest to fund the war on drugs.