All Drugs should be Legalized.

Readers of the debate, Drugs and drug abuse are generally considered a bad thing by the general population and have a deep moral attachment to them, but this isn't the only thing that is bound to the phenomenon. My opponent and I have discussed several different sides and issues with the topic and both sides have placed rather good arguments to the table. I however, without being too much of an egoist, believe that I have made the better case. Let me explain why:In my first round I pointed out the true nature of the resolution: That all drugs should be legal. In order for the resolution to be true my opponent must show that all drugs, be they dangerous, morally wrong, harmless or downright poisonous, should become legal no matter the effects. This is not changing the resolution, but merely making a valid deduction from it without changing the meaning. I then presented him with the burden of explaining why dangerous drugs that WILL hurt you and others should be legal alongside “harmless” drugs. This was my first deduction that must be refuted to ensure that my opponent would win. He has not successfully refuted this as I will get back to later. From that conclusion I then went a step further and pointed out that drugs like bath salts and Krokodil won't become legal under any set of laws for the simple reason that no government would ever accept to legalize a drug that makes consumers loose a foot, no matter how popular or unpopular it would be in reality. This leads to the contradiction: If the resolution is to be true all drugs must be legal. But no government would make all drugs legal due to the nature of the most dangerous ones and thus the resolution can never fulfill itself. My opponent did not devise a solid case on how these drugs would become legal and thus didn't refute this deduction and the resolution is negated. But my opponent failed to realize this and instead pointed at the fact that these drugs wouldn't become legal despite me pointing out numerous times that it is irreverent: The consumer will never get a chance to choose if they'll buy the drug if it won't become legal. We know It will not be legal and thus the customer won't get a chance to make it unpopular meaning it isn't related to the argument. It would be related to the outcome, but not the argument itself. In the following rounds of rebuttals my opponent made several wishy-washy statements and illogical arguments. Such arguments including that legalization of drugs might decrease but might also increase, depending on numerous other factors. This isn't incorrect, but it is also vague and incomplete. He took my argument about accessibility and made a completely irreverent answer that noted how people had been drinking Alcohol and using Tobacco for years and made a vague question that was only vaguely related on weather I thought that allowing drugs would make users increase, a question I already answered in both that round and the round before. He then made the assumption that the only way to force someone to do something was to physically make him do it. However this is incorrect, I can force you to do a lot of things without ever touching you. Your own mindset can force you to do a lot of incorrect things and if you've ever been drunk you should now that you can do a lot of choices that you would't would not do while in a sober, happy state. Choosing to do drugs isn't as light as my opponent is making it out to be and thus isn't a valid answer. It isn't illogical to think that a bad or dark mood is not a justification to bad decisions. His stance on the black market is rather strange: it would perhaps become smaller but how much smaller? What would happen to those already trapped in the underworld? Would they just decide to go someplace else? People would buy unsafe drugs because they can. They might buy it off of friends, they might meet a random person at the club, the might just be offered a new type of drug not in stores that gives them a better high. There are a lot of reasons, just like there are numerous reasons to buying illegal booze. It isn't smart, but it's surprisingly common. He also made the connection that the only reason violence in the undergrounds is drug-related when in reality there are multiple reasons why factions are engaged in it. The black market would change, but it wouldn't stop and it would in no means become any better In his last round he also took my “small town” and turned it to a farm It seems. There is a pharmacy (drug store as my opponent put it) in every town I've ever lived in and the largest one is home to 6000 people, smallest 2000. I can go to a friend who is 21 if I want to get a beer. I can steel it from my family. I can stand outside and wait until someone buys it for me. Buying illegal drugs, as I've been pointing out, is much much harder. I wouldn't buy drugs without an incredible reason. I'm much more likely to buy booze without a reason and yet it is much more harmful than weed for example. When I gave a list of reasons that drug abuse would increase with legalization he dropped it completely meaning that none of the reasons where addressed at all and thus he has failed in explaining why usage would be unchanged. He missed my comparison to the gun that was about to shoot him and stating it as an unrelated scenario. If he had made the connection to the fact that certain drugs have a chance to make someone hostile and hurt you as a result, like a gun with a chance to shoot you, he would have seen how the scenario is related. So this went unanswered. He points out that dealers would be making much less money without sources or citations and in reality this is a rather strange argument to make as it is relying on dealers selling as a primary income. If they are just doing it on the side they'll just keep on doing it to make a few bucks more. However his primary mistake was that he neglected the downsides of drugs and instead of finding real arguments to counter my arguments he simply stated “apart from addiction.” If I'd exclude everything bad from something of course only the good things will remain; but I have to take in the bad things and make real arguments against it. Truth to be told my opponent didn't satisfy his side of the burden of proof and only focused on the good things to drugs but completely ignored any and all bad things that are the result of their usage. In conclusion:My opponent, as stated, hasn't fulfilled his burden of proof sufficiently. He has made several misleading statements, gone off topic a few times and has not refuted some of my key arguments that really should have been answered for his case to hold up. He has gone around several of my arguments and providing “pseudo-answers” instead that seemed to answer them but in reality left them intact and unharmed. I've shown you how the resolution is in contradiction to itself and how it cannot be fulfilled and my opponent has completely ignored it. He has not answered why dangerous drugs should be legal; how they would become legal; the increased accessibility once they are legal and several other key notes. I've however refuted nearly every argument he has made with the exception of the prison argument and income trough taxes and regulations. Readers of the debate: It is quite clear that my opponent is making a good case and I'd like to thank him for the challenging and interesting debate: but it is just as clear that his case isn't strong enough. It is clear that he hasn't fully grasped the full reach of the resolution. it is quite clear why the resolution will never work. His case was unfulfilling and not complete and the resolution has been negated. The conclusion of the evening is that drugs are not all bad, they have a good side to them: but they are far too dangerous and far too risky to allow into our legal medicine cabinet, and thus should remain in the underworld.