The United States should legalize all drugs

Wow... My argument got deleted. Guess I had to start over again.FrameworkSorry if my case is very brief, because my case got deleted, and I do not have much time. This is the last round of the Winter's Tournament, Round 1, and I thank him for the debate. BOP is shared. Pro says vote him for abuse, when I did not post new arguments in the final round. I will talk about the things Pro missed, misunderstanding, as what arguments he had dropped. Pro also states that recreational use for drugs is not part of the resolution, when the resolution clearly says that The United States should legalize drugs for non-medical use.DefenseOkay, I will first go onto my defense for my arguments. This is about Pro's round 4.1. Pro said that he kicked out the argument that I responded. He never argued about which one the real case is about, meaning that there is no reason the rebut that case. My logic is that with legalizing there is no reason to be in trouble, because there is no rule that you are banned. That means that there will be an increase of drug use, which is common logic that everyone knows. Pro also didn't say about kicking out that argument, so he is making new arguments or deleting arguments now.2. I know that it sells drugs. My defense was here. "There is no true harm for criminal networks, it is just that the Taliban will be bound to buy legal business. This completely does not harm to the US, that Taliban people buy legal businesses. Why can't they buy illegal ones just that drugs are illegal? There is smoking also. My point is that we can legalize few drugs, like things that won't harm the criminal networks, just that we won't illegalize all. Thus, this argument is useless if few drugs are legalized, but all are not." Even though they sell drugs, there is no real impact for the US. That is my rebuttal that I stated, there is no huge impact.3. Saving innocent lives. Pro says that he never said it saves people's lives. But he did. He states that, "Legalizing drugs would save innocent lives. In the Mexican Drug War, as a result of US intervention, around 1,000 children, 58 reporters, and 511 American civilians have been killed (US numbers only; information from Wikipedia, sourced from Fox News and Spanish journals). If the United States stops intervention in the Mexican Drug War, and pressures Mexico to legalize drugs as well, around 20,000 lives can be saved annually. Legalizing drugs will also stop the existence of American cartels, and US agribusiness can compete against Mexican drug cartels, thus significantly reducing the latter’s profits, and perhaps ending the Mexican Drug War." He says it saves people's lives, which Pro is making up.4. CrimeOkay, Pro says that crime is not an action that is evil or wrong. However, in Merriam Webster, it clearly says that. Merriam Webster is a reliable sources with reliable defintions. Pro says that legalizing drugs will reduce crime. There is no evidence, and no sources from Pro to prove that.5. This is the economy. As I said, I rebutted this argument saying that people dying makes the economy fail. There si no reason to add on.6. As I said in my framework, medical use is a very important part of the resoltuion, and Pro did not saying anything about this, giving me the win.7. Drug ZonesDrug Zones are places where people can use drugs. Pro does not explain or have prove that this is effective. My rebuttal stated that air moves. It can go to the places where citizens live. People might no solve this, and this will be a hard problem to the government.8. I did not concede both arguments. I will post them here.Children oneThis one is from round 2"Pro does not have any evidence from his sources that children cannot go in drugs. However there is a quick rebuttal from this argument. Legalizing drugs makes drugs easy to buy with no penalty, and no bad things. It is much easier to buy or take access to drugs because it is not illegal. This means that more people can make or go into drugs because it is legalized. This means that more children can go into drugs because legalized."From round 2, and 3Okay, Pro's first argument is about the Liberty in drug legalization. He states that we can have the right to choice unless it does not harm others. However, I had already rebutted Pro's argument by saying that Secondhand impact will happen if we legalize drugs, so just look at my first argument. Also, not all people wanted to choose to use drugs. Many drugs are addictive, such as nicotine. It is not the liberty that makes sometimes the people using drugs, it is that because of the addictiveness. Drugs harm others by secondhand impact, meaning we should not have the right of choice because it harms others.I just knew that Pro had this argument, so I will rebut his argument now." This argument is also kinda rebutted in Liberty, but Pro states that the harm principle is that you have the right to have choice unless it does not hurt anyone. However, this is false. Drugs do harm other people by secondhand impact. This means that there is no reason to have the liberty of our choices for drugs, because of secondhand impact from others who do not smoke.Pro does this by two reasons which are that the government needs to citizens happy, however this does not be accurate. Only some people be happy by drugs, when some don't and get secondhand impact. Therefore we should have liberty for the people who do not use drugs also, not only the people who use drugs. The government's job is to make the citizens happy, but because of drug legalization, people are not happy, and the government is failing their job."They are basically the same.Because I did not drop 'any' of Pro's arguments, and Pro dropped 3 of mine, vote for Con.Sourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Thank you. The end of the debate. Voting starts!