LSD should be legalized with restrictions

Lets now examine some of adversaries claims. Rebuttal 1He compares the side effects of alcohol and LSD. As I have already claimed alcohol can be used a date rape drug, but is no where near convenient as LSD to use. As i have also shown and which he failed to contest(straw manned), this point, LSD is not a primary date rape drug at the moment because it is illegal. Once it is made illegal, the quantity in circulation will increase. As the amount in circulation increases, so will the # of rapes by association. If it was as available as alcohol at the this moment, it would easily contest alcohol as the number 1 means of rape. This is not the case at the moment because it is illegal and hard to come by. If you legalize it, all those standards go out the door and you will have a serious issue. He states "LSD is an incredibly fragile molecule. It rarely even survives immersion in tap water, let alone a Coca-Cola or an alcoholic drink. The victim is unaffected. "He claims that putting it into water will "Degrade it". This is the truth in a small portion but he also twists the facts revolving around this. While tap water has the potential to degrade the potency of the drug, it does not do so immediately. Even if it is diluted to an extreme amount, the potency of LSD itself is so powerful that the victim could and would still suffer from hallucinations. The argument that you can not spike a drink from this is illogical, as this is one of the primary means of using the drug for rape. I have also cited multiple sources to show that this is often used as a date rape drug and is extremely common. Let us pretend he is right, and say that if it touches tap water it loses all of its effects(which it does not). Any way anyone can find to administer to this to someone, would lead to my initial contention. Legalizing this drug will advance the number of rapes that occur. Just pretend every argument he has made is logically sound(questionable), and it would produce only around 1,000 new rapes a year. As I have said earlier, this outcome is still unacceptable because people are still being raped and forced to take this drug unwillingly. The benefits do not match up to the negative effects this drug will bring if legalized. . http://www.tree.com...http://oade.nd.edu...http://oade.nd.edu...http://www.toxassociates.com... <<<< ( Confirms this is used as a date rape drug, even offers tests for it . http://casapalmera.com...Rebuttal 2"LSD addiction is different from heroin, alcohol, and nicotine addiction. It doesn't affect everyone, and is much weaker""LSD is addictive to some people in the same way as pornography and food is addictive to some people. Banning LSD for this reason is as ludicrous as banning pornography or video games. "He fails again to address the point at hand. In every claim he has stated, none of these can effect another individual as directly as LSD. I can't take a video game and make someone watch it, and induce sleepiness to the point I could rape them. I can't make someone eat food to the point where it is possible to rape them unknowingly. Addictions that are personal, and addictions that can effect another person directly are a big difference. Not the difference between directly and indirectlyGambling you can effect your family indirectly because of bad choices with money. With LSD you can effect people both directly and indirectly. One for the money issues that all the other topics he chose to list bring into account. If someone gets addicted they would spend money on it. The main issue however is how it can effect them directly. I can take this and use it as a means to rape someone and alter their sense of perception. He is basically saying thisVideo Games are mentally addictiveA drug that alters perception and causes hallucinations and be used as a date rape drug is mentally addictiveSince Video games are not banned we should not ban this drug. Do I need to even point out, how flawed this line of thinking is. It is the same line of logic that people use to justify anything they want. Sammy is a turtleTurtles are GreenTherefore sammy is green. I often use this as a way to pick out fallacies within logic. This is line of thinking, because it does not consider the other variables at play. Rebuttal 3"I have already made the argument that spiking food or a drink with LSD is highly unlikely to work in my first rebuttal. "And I have already showed why this is completely wrong. He claims it degrades in water, but does not address the fact at the speed of which it degrades. Someone can easily spike a drink with more than enough time to give the victim the effects of this drug, before it has time to dissolve or degrade in quantity. Also note as my sources in my first rebuttal show, the potency and power of this drug is so strong, that even if it degraded to a high degree. Say it was 15 minuets before the victim took a drink, they could still receive the negative effects this drug offers. It is extremely powerful. Rebuttal 4"Once again, he ignores my arguments about cluster headaches and alcoholism. He relies heavily on his date rape stance, which I have rebutted in my first rebuttal. "He means which he has failed to refute, I have already shown that him saying this is not a date rape drug is just flat wrong. I have given multiple sources to prove that, and even gave sites that test to see if you have been exposed to this after visiting a club. This was about his argument for symptoms LSD cause. I gave a long list and do not feel like typing it out all over again. He continues to say these are not "negative effects". I will say this and end this, just to show the illogical nature of this statement. If you drive drunk and can not see the road because of how the alcohol is effecting your blood, this is a negative effect of taking alcohol. What then would we call someone who loses complete sensory control because of a drug? We can surely call this a negative effect. Rebuttal 5I did not misunderstand your argument. Everything that you listed, offers up reasons for taxing and mass producing this drug. Which is the underlying contention. ExampleHe states this"Legalization and regulation would increase safety of users, as well as create revenue through taxation. ""LSD would create safer doses, safer manufacturing environments, age restrictions, and practically eliminate the use of dangerous drugs as LSD substitutes. "He is saying by legally selling and taxing this drug, it would reduce the use of dangerous substitutes that could replace this drug. Again this is a failure to address the initial contention. Note the end of this contention. "Create revenue through taxation". Any variable that before that is irrelevant, because he is trying to prove by doing (x), it is a viable means to sell and tax this drug. With all the negative effects that I have already demonstrated it is not an acceptable choice. He is essentially saying this(x)(x)(x) = selling and taxing this drugNo matter what variables he offers up for (x) values, it does not address the harm that this drug will cause. This is demonstrated all throughout my contentions. I will note this. He is saying by legally selling this, it will reduce other drugs from coming into play. Make this argument for marijuana, and go from point A to point B. If we legalize marijuana it will stop other dangerous substances from being produced. Again this is such bad logic, because there is no way this has shown to be coherently true. In ClosingMy adversary has not met his BOP. I have shown all the negative effects of this drug, and how they far could out weight an positive effects that this drug may or could offer(which are few). For the Sake of our Children, Safety, and Health consider this drug should not be Legal.