The United States should decriminalize drugs.

I. Intro What we have is a system that is not working. It’s clear from my case, as well as various other issues. It’s time to try something new, and that pathway leads to decriminalization. In order to prove that drugs should remain illegal, Con has three pillars to uphold. The first is that a government has a responsibility to prevent people from harming themselves. The second is that drugs are harmful. The third and final pillar is that the status quo is the best way to achieve lower rates of drug use. From there, she must prove that the benefits from maintaining the status quo outweigh the harms of the status quo and the benefits of legalization outlined in my case. II. Re: Government Responsibility Cross apply my points regarding the harm principle to my opponent’s arguments about a government’s responsibility. We know the harms that can come from drugs. If someone chooses to accept those harms, it is the choice of the user, not the government. III. Re: Health Though some drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy can have negative health effects (though many are overstated by Con) marijuana is different. Con starts by saying marijuana causes “severe anxiety and paranoia.” However, her source (which seems semi-reliable at best) says otherwise. Cannabis has a number of different effects. It is classed as a sedating and hallucinogenic drug. Its effects can turn out to be pleasant or unpleasant: Taking cannabis can make people feel chilled out, relaxed and happy, and they may get the giggles or become very talkative. It can make you more aware of your senses, and the hallucinogenic effects can even give you a feeling of time slowing down. It can make you feel very hungry – this is sometimes called ‘getting the munchies'. Some people have one or two drags on a joint and feel light-headed, faint and sick. This is sometimes called a ‘whitey’. Cannabis may cause feelings of anxiety, suspicion, panic and paranoia. [17] Note the stark contrast between what Con says and what her source says. Not only is she exaggerating, she leaves out benefits listed. However, if we look to independent research, we can see that it can actually help fight anxiety, paranoia, and depression. Con also goes on about the lung issues related to cannabis. Here we need to be careful. Her source is a government agency [18]. This is relevant because the marijuana used in government studies is actually nothing like what you can get on the streets [1], so studies using this strain are inherently unreliable. In addition, this only applies to cannabis ingested via smoking, and does not apply to oils or edibles consumed with food products or via other methods. Furthermore, the longest running study using independent data actually suggests that when smoked occasionally, the opposite is true, and that marijuana use enhances lung functioning. [2] This is in addition to the myriad of other health benefits marijuana provides. It can be used to treat or slow chronic diseases such as MS, cancer, Dravet’s Syndrome, etc. It can also stimulate creativity, speed up metabolism, and suppress nightmares, among many other benefits. [3] IV. Re: Criminalization So far I have taken out the first critical pillar of my opponent’s argument: government ought to protect us from ourselves. I have cast doubt on the second pillar, which centers around the health problems Con listed, and even turned the marijuana argument into offense for Pro. Finally, I will dismantle the third pillar of the Con position, that criminalization keeps usage rates low. This was not explicitly laid out in the Con case, but was heavily implied. Obviously, the major concern with decriminalization is that people will be more likely to use and abuse “hard” drugs such as heroin, meth, or krokodil. However, there is data from other countries who have decriminalized all drugs. Case studies can evaluate the data and generally point to benefits of decriminalization. Portugal is the poster-child of the health-focused drug policy movement. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. (To be precise, multiple charges can stack up and lead to criminal charges, but that is rare, occurring in only 12% of cases.) Since their decriminalization efforts, the Portuguese have seen a 12% reduction in the social cost of drugs. [4] This was, in most part, driven by the decrease in drug-related deaths. Portugal now has the second-lowest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe and has seen a dramatic decrease in new AIDS cases among drug users. The average among EU member nations is 17.3 drug deaths per million, while Portugal is at an impressive 3 per million. [5] It is curious, then, why American lawmakers still claim that if we were to decriminalize drugs, the effects would be disastrous and an epidemic would ensue. We are approaching two decades of data from Portugal, and that could not be farther from the truth. V. Sources Con's Round 1 Sources [17] http://m.talktofrank.com... [18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Pro's Round 2 Sources [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://healthland.time.com... [3] http://www.businessinsider.com... [4] http://theinfluence.org... [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com...