All drugs should be legal.

I'm sorry, but a drug addict who neglects or abuses thier children is not "unintentionally abus(ing)" thier children, they're just abusing them, and no one has the right to do that. My opponent even says "the majority of the population is educated on the adverse effects of heroin along with other harmful narcotics", in my opinion, that also goes for the drug addicted parent, who knows full well what they're doing, and the harm that drug can cause, and the harm that drug may cause them to inflict on others, so it is NOT unintentional abuse, it's just abuse. Lets break down the claim made by my opponent that the population is educated on the adverse effects of drugs. It is a true statement, but does that mean that anyone who is educated on the adverse effects of drugs, is not at risk of drug addiction? Of course not, if someone is injured at work, they might be prescribed a powerful painkiller, and that's where the addiction may begin. That could cause a fully grown adult, who is fully educated on the adverse effects of drugs, to become addicted, without choice. Also, there are those who try drugs in a purely recreational manner, and become addicted, they were educated on the adverse effects of drugs as well. I think my opponent is trying to claim that our society is safe from mass addiction because we're educated on the adverse effects of drugs, but we know that isn't true. Our society is in the grips of, not only one mass addiction, but several mass addictions of several different drugs. I apologize, but being educated about the adverse effects of drugs is of no consequence, in real life, or in this debate. Educated or not, people can still become addicted. My opponent claims that "once you turn 18 you are free from your parents and no longer need to do what they wish", "no one should be enslaved by their parents". Umm, I'm not quit sure how to make a rebuttal against that, because I don't know what point my opponent is trying to make. True, when you turn 18, by law you are an adult, but if your parents are good parents, you will never be free from thier love and worry for you, and I'm not sure how this is relevant within the context of this argument. I invite my opponent to infuse some clarity into that statement. I congratulate Portugal and it's initial success with thier drug policy, however I must point out that the drop in overdoses may not be solely tied to the decriminalization of drugs. Portugal transfered their drug policy away from law enforcement and gave it to thier health sector. They also began investing huge amounts of money into drug prevention, and treatment. They funded alternative drug vans, which drive around the cities, handing out free alternative drugs to anyone who wants them, and people line up to get the drugs that are meant to be an alternative to hard drugs. There is a huge pricetag on thier decriminalization policy, both in terms of taxes, and health costs, and it would be a shame if Portugal were to come into some kind of economic hardship and find themselves unable to afford the high cost of thier drug policy. If that happens, then they would find themselves right where they started. The spread of HIV has gone down in Portugal as well, but that is due to a nationwide needle exchange program. I live in a state with a needle exchange program, and we have had similiar results. Also, in my state, anyone who serves time in prison is required to learn how to properly prapare a needle and proper disposal methods, regardless of the crime that put them there. The drop in HIV rates in Portugal has nothing to do with the decriminalization of drugs, it's because of the needle exchange program. Like I've said before, I'm just as much a libertarian as the next guy, but if my taxes and health costs go up to help pay for expensive drug treatment programs, then I would consider that an infringment on my rights.