Addiction is a disease and should only be a health issue and not a criminal issue.

(I’ll begin with rebuttals. And then I’ll present my closing argument.) Rebuttal 1: Con said, “Most people being incarcerated are not even worth the money they are draining from the system were they to get out, and certainly not worth the money for medical treatment.” What a cold statement. Con basically asks: What makes a person worthy of medical treatment? What a terrible calculation! Con asks us to accept it. I will not accept it. And neither should you. How would we decide who is worthy? Would we measure a person’s wealth? Would we consider their gender or race? Con’s argument is shortsighted. I rebut that basic human compassion would motivate treatment of the sick just because they’re suffering and we have the power to do something about it. When a person is in the grip of an addiction, it’s like they're drowning. A drowning man cannot save himself. You don’t ask a sick person if they are “worth it” to save their life. You just do it because it’s the right thing to do. And every single person is important to a society that bases its worth on the advancement of individual liberty. Remember, it’s “individual” liberty, not “collective” liberty. You save someone from illness because you know that the life of even one single person has tremendous inherent value. As the old saying goes, “Save one life, and save the whole world.” Rebuttal 2: Con said, “A vulnerability to being an addict does not make you an addict. It still requires a personal choice to be made. Personal choice is punishable. The subsequent addiction and loss of personal choice may not be ... but it started with a personal choice at some point to use the drug. That is why drug addiction is inherently different from the other diseases you keep referencing.” If we are going to punish people for personal choice, then all people should be punished equally. This is only fair. You can’t punish one person for taking their first drink of alcohol and then they become addicted, and not punish another person for taking their first drink of alcohol and they remain sober. Especially since we now understand that addiction is caused by a vulnerability that’s beyond control. Both addict and sober person made the same personal choice, and if you’re going to punish people for that choice then they BOTH need to be punished in a way that fits their crime. Con singles out addicts because they are an easy target. They are so-called “bad people”. But they’re not. They’re our family and friends. We can’t hold some people to a high standard if we ourselves are not willing to live by that standard also.Pro's Closing ArgumentI started out this debate promising to prove three things. I have fulfilled that promise. I have shown how addiction is in fact a disease. I've shown that addition is best addressed as a health issues. And I've shown the ineffectivness of the "war on drugs" and how treating addiction as a criminal issue is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.We are all afraid of addicts. But what is that fear? What are its qualities when we really examine it? What we're really scared of is the pain and suffering we see in a helpless addict. And that fear is justified. It's the same fear when we meet a person whose body is racked with cancer, or a person dying of AIDS. We're afraid to admit that a healthy and strong person, maybe a person we love, could be made into such a weak and feeble pathetic shadow. And we fear that it could happen to us. That's OK to have that fear. But we need to be brave and see addiction for what it really is. We need to be brave and see it as a disease. It's not a moral failure. No person is so righteous that they will never make a bad decision in their life. But we pretend that addicts are not worthy of our medical treatment. How can we hold those contradictory ideas? I'll tell you: it's because we're afraid. Fear makes people illogical. Be brave. Vote for Pro.Thank you all for your time! And thank you Con for your effort and insight!